This is a quiz on the law of negligence, in particular the law relating to Duty of Care
Caparo v Dickman [1990]
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Bourhill v Young [1942]
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]
Was the loss to the defendant foreseeable, was there insuffcicient proximity and is it equitable to impose a duty of care?
The persons are so directly affected, the defendant ought to reasonable have the claimant in contemplation and they are affected by the defendants acts or omissions?
Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable, was there sufficient proximity between the parties, is it fair, just and reasonable, on public policy grounds, to impose a duty of care?
Objective
Subjective
The motorcyclist could not have foreseen that she would be harmed by his negligence
The case passed the foreseeability test but it failed on the proximity test
It wasn't fair, just and reasonable that liability in negligence should be imposed
True
False
Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [1999]
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]
Osman v United Kingdom [1999]
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2001]
True
False
True
False
True
False
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999]
Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995]
Page v Smith [1995]
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]
Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.