GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Quiz

Negligence Quiz

emhutton 8 questions

Take the quiz

This quiz has question types that open in the usual player.

Questions in this quiz (8)

  1. 1In order to established a claim in [blank_start]negligence[blank_end], the following four elements must be satisfied: [blank_start]actionable damage[blank_end], [blank_start]duty of care[blank_end], [blank_start]breach of duty[blank_end] and [blank_start]causation[blank_end].
    Once a [blank_start]claim[blank_end] is established, we must consider any possible [blank_start]defences[blank_end] and remedies.
    1. Anegligence
    2. Bactionable damage
    3. Cduty of care
    4. Dbreach of duty
    5. Ecausation
    6. Fdefences
    7. Gclaim
  2. 2What is the damage?
    Is it [blank_start]actionable[blank_end]?
    o Psychiatric harm must be [blank_start]medically recognisable[blank_end] ([blank_start]Hinz v Berry[blank_end])
    o [blank_start]Personal[blank_end] injury must be more than merely [blank_start]trivial[blank_end] ([blank_start]Rothwell[blank_end] v Chemical & Insulating Co)
    1. Amedically recognisable
    2. Bactionable
    3. CHinz v Berry
    4. DRothwell
    5. Etrivial
    6. FPersonal
  3. 3DUTY OF [blank_start]CARE[blank_end]:

    Apply [blank_start]CAPARO[blank_end]:
    o There must be a relationship of [blank_start]proximity[blank_end] between C and D
    o The harm suffered must be [blank_start]foreseeable[blank_end] ([blank_start]Bhamra v Dubb[blank_end])
    o It must be fair, just and [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] to impose a duty of care on D ([blank_start]MacFarlane[blank_end] v Tayside Health Board)

    IF there is a consumer-[blank_start]manufacturer[blank_end] relationship, mention the [blank_start]Neighbourhood[blank_end] Principle in Donoghue v [blank_start]Stevenson[blank_end]
    1. ACAPARO
    2. BCARE
    3. Cforeseeable
    4. DBhamra v Dubb
    5. EMacFarlane
    6. Fproximity
    7. Greasonable
    8. HNeighbourhood
    9. Imanufacturer
    10. JStevenson
  4. 4DUTY OF CARE:

    OMISSIONS:

    Stovin v [blank_start]Wise[blank_end] – generally no liability for an [blank_start]omission[blank_end]
    Barrett v Ministry of Defence – where D agrees to act or [blank_start]voluntarily[blank_end] accepts a [blank_start]responsibility[blank_end], his later failure to do so will render him liable
    Where there is a special relationship between C and D, there is a [blank_start]legal duty[blank_end] to act e.g. doctor and patient ([blank_start]Bolam v Friern[blank_end])
    Home Office v [blank_start]Dorset Yacht[blank_end] Co – a [blank_start]duty of care[blank_end] is owed for an omission where D is in [blank_start]control[blank_end] of a 3rd party who caused the [blank_start]damage[blank_end] and it was [blank_start]foreseeable[blank_end] that harm would result from their inaction
    [blank_start]Haynes v Harwood[blank_end] – D will be liable where he has created the source of [blank_start]danger[blank_end]
    1. Aomission
    2. BWise
    3. Cvoluntarily
    4. Dresponsibility
    5. EDorset Yacht
    6. Fduty of care
    7. Gcontrol
    8. Hdamage
    9. Iforeseeable
    10. Jlegal duty
    11. KBolam v Friern
    12. Ldanger
    13. MHaynes v Harwood
  5. 5DUTY OF CARE:

    ECONOMIC LOSS:

    [blank_start]Spartan Steel[blank_end] - Generally no duty of care is owed to avoid causing another to suffer a loss which is purely [blank_start]economic[blank_end]
    [blank_start]Hedley Byrne[blank_end] - Where the economic is caused by negligent [blank_start]mis-statement[blank_end] as opposed to a [blank_start]negligent[blank_end] act, liability may be imposed
    1. AHedley Byrne
    2. BSpartan Steel
    3. Ceconomic
    4. Dmis-statement
    5. Enegligent
  6. 6BREACH OF DUTY:

    Apply the [blank_start]reasonable man[blank_end] test in [blank_start]Blyth[blank_end] v Birmingham Waterworks Co

    BUT if there is an exceptional scenario -

    [blank_start]HORSEPLAY[blank_end]: Only a DOC if recklessness or high level of carelessness ([blank_start]Blake[blank_end] v Galloway)

    PROFESSIONAL: Held to the standard of a [blank_start]reasonable[blank_end] person within that profession (Wilsher v Essex)

    LEARNER DRIVER: Must reach the standard of a competent [blank_start]qualified[blank_end] driver ([blank_start]Nettleship v Weston[blank_end])

    [blank_start]DOCTOR[blank_end]: If the Dr has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a [blank_start]professional body[blank_end], he is NOT liable (Bolam v [blank_start]Friern[blank_end])
    The opinion must be [blank_start]defensible[blank_end] and rooted in [blank_start]logic[blank_end] ([blank_start]Bolitho[blank_end] v City & Hackney HA)

    CHILD: Judged by standard of a reasonable child of the same [blank_start]age[blank_end] ([blank_start]Mullin v Richards[blank_end])

    ILLNESS: The Courts have not taken a consistent approach due to [blank_start]policy[blank_end] reasons
    [blank_start]Roberts v Ramsbottom[blank_end] - personal injury thus a breach of duty was found in order to ensure V was compensated
    Mansfield v Weetabix – [blank_start]property[blank_end] damage so covered by insurance
    1. Areasonable man
    2. BBlyth
    3. CHORSEPLAY
    4. DBlake
    5. Equalified
    6. FNettleship v Weston
    7. Greasonable
    8. HDOCTOR
    9. IFriern
    10. Jdefensible
    11. Klogic
    12. Lprofessional body
    13. MBolitho
    14. NMullin v Richards
    15. Oage
    16. Ppolicy
    17. QRoberts v Ramsbottom
    18. Rproperty
  7. 7CAUSATION:

    FACTUAL:

    Apply the [blank_start]BUT FOR[blank_end] test ([blank_start]Barnett v Chelsea[blank_end]) UNLESS…
    o D did not cause the [blank_start]initial harm[blank_end] (Performance Cars v Abrahams)
    o C’s [blank_start]hypothetical conduct[blank_end] can be proved (McWilliams v Sir William Arrol Co)
    o If there are multiple reasons and D’s conduct is only one of them, D cannot be held liable ([blank_start]Wilsher v Essex AHA[blank_end])

    MULTIPLE CAUSES –

    SUCCESSIVE: 2 [blank_start]independent[blank_end] events causing harm

    [blank_start]Baker v Willoughby[blank_end] – the 1st D should be liable to compensate for his original harm caused continually
    Jobling v Associated Dairies – the 2nd event cut off the [blank_start]liability[blank_end] of the 1st D because the harm suffered was not related to the initial harm

    [blank_start]CONCURRENT[blank_end]: 2 or more concurrent events causing harm

    Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw – C must only prove that D’s [blank_start]breach of duty[blank_end] made a material contribution to the harm suffered. D will be liable for the full [blank_start]extent[blank_end] of the harm ([blank_start]Divisible[blank_end] injuries)
    Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services – Causation is proved by stating that D [blank_start]materially contributed[blank_end] to the risk of harm ([blank_start]Indivisible[blank_end] injuries)

    LOSS OF CHANCE CASES:

    Hotson v East Berkshire & [blank_start]Gregg v Scott[blank_end] - The Courts are reluctant to impose liability for a loss of chance in [blank_start]personal injury[blank_end]
    Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons – Loss of a chance in [blank_start]pure economic loss[blank_end] may be recoverable

    MEDICAL [blank_start]NON-DISCLOSURES[blank_end]:

    Chappel v Hart – D liable where the harm falls within the scope of the risk C should have been [blank_start]warned[blank_end] about.
    [blank_start]Chester v Afshar[blank_end] – Causation inferred on reasons of fairness and justice (policy decision).
    Only applies in cases where C is suing the Dr for failing to warn her about the [blank_start]risks[blank_end] and where C admits she may still have had the surgery anyway.
    1. ABUT FOR
    2. BBarnett v Chelsea
    3. Chypothetical conduct
    4. Dinitial harm
    5. EWilsher v Essex AHA
    6. Findependent
    7. GBaker v Willoughby
    8. Hliability
    9. ICONCURRENT
    10. JGregg v Scott
    11. Kbreach of duty
    12. Lmaterially contributed
    13. Mextent
    14. NDivisible
    15. Opure economic loss
    16. Ppersonal injury
    17. QIndivisible
    18. RChester v Afshar
    19. Srisks
    20. Twarned
    21. UNON-DISCLOSURES
  8. 8CAUSATION:

    LEGAL:

    REMOTENESS: is the type of damage [blank_start]foreseeable[blank_end]? (Wagon Mound No [blank_start]1[blank_end])
    [blank_start]NOVUS ACTUS[blank_end] INTERVENIENS: 3 possible scenarios –

    1. Act of [blank_start]Nature[blank_end]
    [blank_start]Carslogie Steamship Co[blank_end] v Royal Norwegian Government – an act of nature can break the causation chain

    2. Act of a [blank_start]Third Party[blank_end]
    Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co – was their act foreseeable? The [blank_start]conduct[blank_end] of the boys must have been very likely, otherwise the chain of causation is broken, per Lord [blank_start]Reid[blank_end]
    Lamb v Camden LBC – a high degree of [blank_start]foresight[blank_end] is required (affirmed principle in [blank_start]Dorset Yacht[blank_end])
    [blank_start]Knightley v Johns[blank_end] – a negligent act is more likely to break the chain of causation.

    3. Act of Claimant – did C act [blank_start]reasonably[blank_end] in the circumstances? (McKew v Holland)
    Corr v IBC Vehicles – where suicide is a response to a [blank_start]psychological[blank_end] illness, C is not making an informed choice
    [blank_start]Reeves v Commissioner of Police[blank_end] – where a [blank_start]duty[blank_end] is owed in the first place, there cannot be a NAI
    1. Aforeseeable
    2. B1
    3. CNOVUS ACTUS
    4. DNature
    5. ECarslogie Steamship Co
    6. Fconduct
    7. GThird Party
    8. Hreasonably
    9. Ipsychological
    10. JReeves v Commissioner of Police
    11. KReid
    12. LKnightley v Johns
    13. Mforesight
    14. NDorset Yacht
    15. Oduty

Information

Description
Fill in the blanks quiz on negligence.
Author
emhutton
Language
English
Views
277
Rating
No ratings yet
Rate this quiz
Rate this quiz

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?