Tort Law: Negligence (Standard Of care)

20 Questions | By Chriscullen | Last updated: Feb 18, 2013 | Total Attempts: 63

Questions

Settings

A quiz on Negligence, Breach of Duty, Standard of Care. . .

Questions and Answers

1.

Winfield and Jolowicz: Negligence as a tort is a _______ of a legal duty to take care which causes damage to the claimant.
2.
To establish a BREACH of the duty discussed in the previous quiz, we must:
1. Establish the Standard of Care
2. Consider Special Circumstances
3. Establish a Breach
A Standard of Care derives from what a reasonable man would do, or would not do.
- A.
  
  True
- B.
  
  False
3.
STANDARD OF CARE is all about how the defendant ought to have behaved in the circumstances. In other words;
1. OMITTING TO DO SOMETHING THE REASONABLE MAN WOULD DO; or
2. DOING SOMETHING THE REASONABLE MAN WOULDN'T DO
in the present circumstances. This definition was laid down by Alderson B in...
- A.
  
  Nettleship v Weston
- B.
  
  Lauren v Susan
- C.
  
  Blyth v Birmingham
- D.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
4.

The REASONABLE MAN is "neither OVER-APPREHENSIVE or OVER-CONFIDENT" Lord Macmillan defined the reasonable man in which case?
- A.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
- B.
  
  Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
- C.
  
  Marshall v Osmond
- D.
  
  Glasgow Corp v Muir
5.

This case established that a learner driver must drive in as good a manner as a driver of skill, experience and care.
- A.
  
  Nettleship v Weston
- B.
  
  Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
- C.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
- D.
  
  Mansfield v Weetabix
6.

This case establishes that the act itself is what is most relevant - as opposed to the person carrying out the activity... So, for example, it's about "driving on public roads" as opposed to "who is driving" Which case?
- A.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
- B.
  
  Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
- C.
  
  Mansfield v Weetabix
- D.
  
  Nettleship v Weston
7.

In this case, a driver had a stroke whilst driving. This reiterated the OBJECTIVE TEST as the Reasonable Person would not have driven whilst feeling unwell as the defendant did. He did not take the course of action of a reasonable person so was therefore liable.
- A.
  
  Mansfield v Weetabix
- B.
  
  Winfield v Jolowicz
- C.
  
  Watt v Hertfordshire CC
- D.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
8.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
In ILLNESS, the defendant is not liable if, whilst driving, the driver suffers an UNEXPECTED, SUDDEN, DISABLING illness. "Even a reasonable man can have a heart attack". The lorry driver in this case was suffering from hypoglycaemia - but was unaware of the effect on his driving. He crashed into a shop - but was not held liable as the standard of care was changed to: "a reasonably competent driver [UNAWARE that he is or may be suffering from a condition impairing his ability to drive]"
- A.
  
  Stevenson v Greens Logistics
- B.
  
  Mansfield v Weetabix
- C.
  
  Margereson v JW Roberts
- D.
  
  Marshall v Osmond
9.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
In ILLNESS, the defendant is not liable if, whilst driving, the driver suffers an UNEXPECTED, SUDDEN, DISABLING illness. "Even a reasonable man can have a heart attack". The lorry driver in this case was suffering from hypoglycaemia - but was unaware of the effect on his driving. He crashed into a shop - but was not held liable as the standard of care was changed to: "a reasonably competent driver [UNAWARE that he is or may be suffering from a condition impairing his ability to drive]"
- A.
  
  Stevenson v Greens Logistics
- B.
  
  Mansfield v Weetabix
- C.
  
  Margereson v JW Roberts
- D.
  
  Marshall v Osmond
10.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
In EMERGENCIES, the RISK must be balanced with the END TO BE ACHIEVED. Saving life or limb justifies considerable risk. This was the fire service case - where the fire officer gave consent for a heavy lifting machine to be transported using an unsuitable lorry because the other lorry was unavailable and could have been fatal had they waited. The risk did not pay off, and a fire fighter was injured as a result. But the standard of care had lowered in the emergency situation.
- A.
  
  Stevenson v Greens Logistics
- B.
  
  Watt v Hertfordshire CC
- C.
  
  Margereson v JW Roberts
- D.
  
  Marshall v Osmond
11.

In this case, a police car chasing a criminal crashed into the criminal's vehicle, injuring the criminal. The officer had been seen to have made an "error in judgement" but these can be expected in a high pressure emergency situation. The police was not therefore liable.
- A.
  
  Marshall v Osmond
- B.
  
  Mansfield v Weetabix
- C.
  
  Wooldridge v Sumner
- D.
  
  Roe v Ministry of Health
12.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
In this case, the horse-rider lost control of the horse around a bend and it went off the track, injuring a photographer. The following was held;
- errors in judgement in sporting activiites are not negligent
- spectator took the risk of any damage during the course of the game; as long as it was not deliberate.
- A.
  
  Paris v Stepney
- B.
  
  Wooldridge v Sumner
- C.
  
  Walker v Knight
- D.
  
  Latimer v AEC
13.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
The STATE OF KNOWLEDGE can be particularly relevant in medical cases. In this case, the client became paralysed after a minor operation because of how a syringe was stored. 7 years down the line, medical research had developed and the injured person claimed for negligence. Denning stated that the accident must be looked at with "spectacles" from when it happened - with the state of knowledge at the time.
- A.
  
  Orchard v Lee
- B.
  
  Mullin v Richards
- C.
  
  Rosey v Nathan
- D.
  
  Roe v Ministry of Health
14.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
In this case, it was established that the reasonable person test should be applied to the age of the person. I.E. would an "ordinarily prudent and reasonable 15 year old girl" have had a sword-fight with a ruler? Would the risk of injury have been apparent?
- A.
  
  Orchard v Lee
- B.
  
  Mullin v Richards
- C.
  
  Rosey v Nathan
- D.
  
  Roe v Ministry of Health
15.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
If you have a special skill - you must show a greater standard of care in comparison to somebody without that special skill. For instance, in this case it was held a jeweller must show the level of care that the customer of a jeweller would carry out.
- A.
  
  Orchard v Lee
- B.
  
  Mullin v Richards
- C.
  
  Rosey v Nathan
- D.
  
  Phillips v William Whiteley
16.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
On the contrary, if you carry out a special task - like carpenting (or fixing a door handle)... but you do not possess a special skill, then you must only "take steps that a reasonably competent carpenter" would take. Lower standard of care if you are not qualified and the claimant knows this.
- A.
  
  Wells v Cooper
- B.
  
  Bolam v Friern
- C.
  
  Bolitho v City & Hackney HA
- D.
  
  Wilsher v Essex
17.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
The standard of care expected from a doctor was suprisingly easy to satisfy in this case. It established that doctors are not negligent if they practice in a way that another responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular area act... Even if there is opposing views. This meant a doctor could find any other doctor carrying out the same practice and be freed from liability - even if 90% of doctors use a different method.
- A.
  
  Ward v Tesco
- B.
  
  Bolam v Friern
- C.
  
  Wells v Cooper
- D.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
18.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
This case recognised the flaws in the BOLAM TEST from before - and establised that the opinion of the medical person relied upon, must be founded on a logical basis, by a responsible, reasonable and respectable doctor.
- A.
  
  Wilsher v Essex
- B.
  
  Roberts v Ramsbottom
- C.
  
  Bolitho v City & Hackney
- D.
  
  Ward v Byham
19.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
1. ILLNESS
2. EMERGENCIES
3. SPORTING INJURIES
4. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
5. CHILDREN
6. SPECIAL SKILLS
This case, much like the NETTLESHIP v WESTON case, established that a trainee must have the same standard of care as a doctor of experience.
- A.
  
  Wilsher v Essex HA
- B.
  
  Bolitho v City & Hackney
- C.
  
  Baker v Willoughby
- D.
  
  Trmain v Pike
20.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the claimant - and is on the balance of probabilities (51%+) D's actions fell below the standard of care required.
1. The accident must be the kind that does not normally happen without negligence
2. and Must have been under the D's control
WARD v TESCO established that once the Claimant has proven that their point on the balance of probabilities (easy to prove) the defendant must then prove against this. In WARD v TESCO, the claimant slipped on a yoghurt in Tesco, and Tesco then had to prove that they had exercised the necessary standard of care to quickly eliminate the trip hazard. They failed to prove this and were liable.
- A.
  
  True
- B.
  
  False