1. If the defendant has BREACHED their duty of care, they have...?
- caused a personal injury to the claimant
- caused harm that was unforeseeable
- done something wrong or failed to do something
- done something wrong and shown no remorse for their actions
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. There are 3 tests for looking at whether there was a breach that caused resulting damage... what are they?
- remoteness of damage, caparo test and the neighbour principle
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and chain of causation
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and remoteness of damage
- eggshell skull rule, chain of causation and the caparo test
3. There was NO duty of care owed in Bourhill v Young because...?
- Harm wasn't foreseeable as she was 50 yards away from the accident
- the woman was responsible for the crash so nobody else owes her a duty of care
- the type of injury (loss of her baby) was an unforeseeable
- The motor cyclist did not cause the crash
4. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?
- the JAC test
- eggshell skull rule
- neighbour principle
- but for test
5. The second part of the caparo test asks...?
- Was there resulting damage?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
- Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant?
- Is the claimant themselves at fault?