AQA law - Proving Negligence

HideShow resource information

1. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?

  • neighbour principle
  • eggshell skull rule
  • but for test
  • the JAC test
1 of 10

Other questions in this quiz

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. The second part of the caparo test asks...?

  • Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant?
  • Was there resulting damage?
  • Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
  • Is the claimant themselves at fault?

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

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