AQA law - Proving Negligence

HideShow resource information

1. In Bradford v Robinson Rentals, the claimant suffered frostbite due to a broken car heater... could this be claimed for?

  • Yes... even though frost bite was unforeseeable, it WAS foreseeable that personal injury could occur due to a broken heater
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Yes... Everyone who had driven or been a passenger in that car had suffered frost bite so the damage was therefore foreseeable.
1 of 10

Other questions in this quiz

2. The first duty of care was established in...?

  • Pepper v Hart
  • Caparo v Hart
  • Donaghue v Stevenson
  • Caparo v Dickman

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. In Roe v Minister of Health, was the doctor in breach of his duty of care?

  • Yes... because he is a doctor and has an obligated duty to care for his patients by providing them with sterile medication, which he failed to do.
  • No... because he had no way of knowing about the invisible cracks in the anaesthetic bottles, so harm from the contaminated medicine was not foreseeable.
  • No... because he had warned the patients that the medicine might be contaminated and they agreed to take it at their own risk.
  • Yes... because he was the one who caused the bottles to crack due to handling them in a rough manner when putting them onto the shelves.

5. 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 type of injury (loss of her baby) was an unforeseeable
  • The motor cyclist did not cause the crash
  • the woman was responsible for the crash so nobody else owes her a duty of care

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »