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. In Roe v Minister of Health, was the doctor in breach of his duty of care?
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.
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.
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 is a doctor and has an obligated duty to care for his patients by providing them with sterile medication, which he failed to do.
3. In Bolton v Stone, the cricket club weren't in breach of duty because...?
There is a social benefit to playing cricket and the likelihood of the ball leaving the grounds and hitting someone was very low.
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.
The likelihood of the cricket ball leaving the ground was high but the social benefit of the sport outweighs this.
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.
4. In Bradford v Robinson Rentals, the claimant suffered frostbite due to a broken car heater... could this be claimed for?
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.
Yes... even though frost bite was unforeseeable, it WAS foreseeable that personal injury could occur due to a broken heater
Yes... Everyone who had driven or been a passenger in that car had suffered frost bite so the damage was therefore foreseeable.
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.
5. Which two cases demonstrate that: types of damages that are not foreseeable, cannot be claimed for as they are too remote?
Smith v Leech Brain and Co... and ... Bolton v Stone
Paris v Stepney Borough Council ... and ... Whitely v Chappell
The Wagon Mound ... and ... Crossley v Rowlinson
Roe v Minister of Health ... and ... Smith v Leech Brain and Co
Comments
No comments have yet been made