1. If the defendant has BREACHED their duty of care, they have...?
- done something wrong or failed to do something
- caused harm that was unforeseeable
- done something wrong and shown no remorse for their actions
- caused a personal injury to the claimant
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?
- the JAC test
- but for test
- eggshell skull rule
- neighbour principle
3. Which two cases demonstrate that: types of damages that are not foreseeable, cannot be claimed for as they are too remote?
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council ... and ... Whitely v Chappell
- Roe v Minister of Health ... and ... Smith v Leech Brain and Co
- The Wagon Mound ... and ... Crossley v Rowlinson
- Smith v Leech Brain and Co... and ... Bolton v Stone
4. There was NO duty of care owed in Bourhill v Young because...?
- 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
- Harm wasn't foreseeable as she was 50 yards away from the accident
- The motor cyclist did not cause the crash
5. 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 remoteness of damage
- eggshell skull rule, chain of causation and the caparo test
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and chain of causation