1. There are 3 tests for looking at whether there was a breach that caused resulting damage... what are they?
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and remoteness of damage
- remoteness of damage, caparo test and the neighbour principle
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and chain of causation
- eggshell skull rule, chain of causation and the caparo test
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. The first duty of care was established in...?
- Caparo v Hart
- Donaghue v Stevenson
- Pepper v Hart
- Caparo v Dickman
3. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?
- eggshell skull rule
- but for test
- neighbour principle
- the JAC test
4. In Bradford v Robinson Rentals, the claimant suffered frostbite due to a broken car heater... could this be claimed for?
- Yes... Everyone who had driven or been a passenger in that car had suffered frost bite so the damage was therefore foreseeable.
- Yes... even though frost bite was unforeseeable, it WAS foreseeable that personal injury could occur due to a broken heater
- No... The claimant owned the car heater and broke it himself by mistake so it was the claimant's own actions resulting in damage - he therefore couldn't claim for it.
- No... the type of damage (personal injury) may have been foreseeable, but the specific injury of frost bite wasn't foreseeable so he therefore couldn't claim for it.
5. In Bolton v Stone, the cricket club weren't in breach of duty because...?
- The cricket ball caused a serious injury to the person it hit but they didn't sue as they were a massive fan of the game.
- There is a social benefit to playing cricket and the likelihood of the ball leaving the grounds and hitting someone was very low.
- The likelihood of the cricket ball leaving the ground was high but the social benefit of the sport outweighs this.
- There is a social benefit to playing cricket, and the ball hit a fellow cricket player who understood that playing the sport could lead to injury.