Tort Law: Negligence (Standard Of care)
(224).webp "Tort Law: Negligence (Standard Of care) - Quiz")
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.
Explanation
The correct answer is "breach". In the context of negligence as a tort, a breach refers to the failure or violation of a legal duty to take care. This breach of duty is what leads to the damage suffered by the claimant. "Breech" and "brech" are incorrect spellings and do not have any relevance in this context.Rate this question:
- 2.
To establish a BREACH of the duty discussed in the previous quiz, we must:
- Establish the Standard of Care
- Consider Special Circumstances
- Establish a Breach
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The explanation for the given correct answer is that a standard of care is determined by what a reasonable person would do or not do in a given situation. In order to establish a breach of duty, it is necessary to establish this standard of care. Therefore, the statement "A Standard of Care derives from what a reasonable man would do, or would not do" is true.Rate this question:
- 3.
STANDARD OF CARE is all about how the defendant ought to have behaved in the circumstances. In other words;
- OMITTING TO DO SOMETHING THE REASONABLE MAN WOULD DO; or
- DOING SOMETHING THE REASONABLE MAN WOULDN'T DO
- A.
Nettleship v Weston
- B.
Lauren v Susan
- C.
Blyth v Birmingham
- D.
Roberts v Ramsbottom
Correct Answer
C. Blyth v BirminghamExplanation
The correct answer is Blyth v Birmingham. In this case, Alderson B provided a definition of the standard of care, stating that it is about how the defendant should have behaved in the given circumstances. It includes both omitting to do something that a reasonable person would do and doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do. This case is significant because it established the principle that the standard of care is based on what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.Rate this question:
- 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
Correct Answer
D. Glasgow Corp v MuirExplanation
Lord Macmillan defined the reasonable man in the case of Glasgow Corp v Muir. In this case, Lord Macmillan explained that the reasonable man is someone who is neither over-apprehensive nor over-confident. This means that the reasonable man does not act in an overly cautious or overly reckless manner, but instead exercises a balanced level of caution and confidence in his actions. This definition helps to establish a standard of behavior that is expected from individuals in legal cases, allowing for a fair and objective assessment of their actions.Rate this question:
-
- 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
Correct Answer
A. Nettleship v WestonExplanation
Nettleship v Weston is the correct answer because this case established the principle that a learner driver must drive with the same level of skill, experience, and care as an experienced driver. In this case, the defendant, who was a learner driver, caused an accident while taking driving lessons. The court ruled that learners should be held to the same standard of care as experienced drivers, as they are operating a potentially dangerous vehicle on public roads. This case set a precedent for the duty of care expected from learner drivers and has been widely cited in similar cases.Rate this question:
-
- 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
Correct Answer
B. Wilsher v Essex Health AuthorityExplanation
In Wilsher v Essex Health Authority, the court established that the act itself is more important than the person carrying out the activity. This means that the focus is on the action of "driving on public roads" rather than the identity of the driver. Therefore, the correct answer is Wilsher v Essex Health Authority.Rate this question:
-
- 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
Correct Answer
D. Roberts v RamsbottomExplanation
In the case of Roberts v Ramsbottom, the driver had a stroke while driving. The objective test was applied to determine liability. The reasonable person would not have driven while feeling unwell, which the defendant did. Therefore, the defendant did not take the course of action that a reasonable person would have taken, making them liable for the consequences of their actions.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Stevenson v Greens Logistics
- B.
Mansfield v Weetabix
- C.
Margereson v JW Roberts
- D.
Marshall v Osmond
Correct Answer
B. Mansfield v WeetabixExplanation
In the case of Mansfield v Weetabix, the defendant was driving a lorry and suffered from hypoglycemia, a condition that impairs his ability to drive. However, he was unaware of the effect it had on his driving. As a result, he crashed into a shop. The court held that the defendant was not liable because the standard of care was changed to include a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that he is or may be suffering from a condition impairing his ability to drive. This case establishes that in situations where a driver is suffering from an unexpected, sudden, disabling illness, they may not be held liable if they were unaware of the condition's effect on their driving.Rate this question:
- 9.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Stevenson v Greens Logistics
- B.
Mansfield v Weetabix
- C.
Margereson v JW Roberts
- D.
Marshall v Osmond
Correct Answer
B. Mansfield v WeetabixExplanation
In Mansfield v Weetabix, the defendant was driving a lorry and suffered from hypoglycemia, a condition that impaired his ability to drive. However, he was unaware of the effect it had on his driving. He ended up crashing into a shop. The court held that he was not liable because the standard of care was changed to include a reasonably competent driver who is unaware that they are suffering from a condition impairing their ability to drive. This case established that in cases of illness, a defendant may not be held liable if they suffer an unexpected, sudden, disabling illness while driving.Rate this question:
- 10.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Stevenson v Greens Logistics
- B.
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
- C.
Margereson v JW Roberts
- D.
Marshall v Osmond
Correct Answer
B. Watt v Hertfordshire CCExplanation
In the case of Watt v Hertfordshire CC, the court established that the standard of care can be lower in emergency situations. This means that in emergencies, the level of risk can be justified if it is necessary to achieve the desired outcome, such as saving a life or preventing further harm. In this specific case, the fire officer made a decision to transport a heavy lifting machine using an unsuitable lorry due to the unavailability of a suitable one. Although the risk did not pay off and a firefighter was injured, the court recognized that the standard of care had lowered in the emergency situation.Rate this question:
- 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
Correct Answer
A. Marshall v OsmondExplanation
In the case of Marshall v Osmond, the explanation for the given correct answer is that the police officer's error in judgment can be considered as a reasonable mistake made in a high-pressure emergency situation. This means that the officer's actions were not negligent or reckless, but rather a result of the circumstances they were faced with. As a result, the police cannot be held liable for the injuries caused to the criminal during the chase and subsequent crash.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- 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
Correct Answer
B. Wooldridge v SumnerExplanation
Wooldridge v Sumner is the correct answer because it relates to the specific circumstances mentioned in the question, namely sporting injuries. The case establishes that errors in judgment in sporting activities are not considered negligent, and spectators assume the risk of any damage during the course of the game as long as it is not deliberate. This aligns with the scenario described where the horse-rider lost control of the horse during a sporting event and injured a photographer.Rate this question:
- 13.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Orchard v Lee
- B.
Mullin v Richards
- C.
Rosey v Nathan
- D.
Roe v Ministry of Health
Correct Answer
D. Roe v Ministry of Health - 14.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Orchard v Lee
- B.
Mullin v Richards
- C.
Rosey v Nathan
- D.
Roe v Ministry of Health
Correct Answer
B. Mullin v Richards - 15.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Orchard v Lee
- B.
Mullin v Richards
- C.
Rosey v Nathan
- D.
Phillips v William Whiteley
Correct Answer
D. Phillips v William Whiteley - 16.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Wells v Cooper
- B.
Bolam v Friern
- C.
Bolitho v City & Hackney HA
- D.
Wilsher v Essex
Correct Answer
A. Wells v CooperExplanation
The correct answer is Wells v Cooper. This case establishes that if a person carries out a special task, such as carpentry, without possessing the necessary special skills, they are still expected to take steps that a reasonably competent person with those skills would take. This means that even if someone is not qualified, they still have a duty of care to act in a competent manner. The claimant in this case would need to be aware that the person performing the task is not qualified in order for the lower standard of care to apply.Rate this question:
- 17.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Ward v Tesco
- B.
Bolam v Friern
- C.
Wells v Cooper
- D.
Roberts v Ramsbottom
Correct Answer
B. Bolam v FriernExplanation
The case of Bolam v Friern is relevant to the concept of standard of care in medical negligence cases. It established that doctors are not considered negligent if they act in accordance with a responsible body of medical professionals with expertise in that particular area, even if there are opposing views. This means that a doctor can be freed from liability if they can find another doctor who carries out the same practice, even if the majority of doctors use a different method. The case of Bolam v Friern is an important precedent in determining the standard of care expected from doctors.Rate this question:
- 18.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Wilsher v Essex
- B.
Roberts v Ramsbottom
- C.
Bolitho v City & Hackney
- D.
Ward v Byham
Correct Answer
C. Bolitho v City & HackneyExplanation
This case, Bolitho v City & Hackney, recognized the flaws in the Bolam test and established that the opinion of a medical person must be based on a logical basis and be provided by a responsible, reasonable, and respectable doctor. It emphasized the importance of the doctor's opinion being able to withstand logical scrutiny, even if it is a minority view. This case highlighted the need for a higher standard of care in medical negligence cases and contributed to the development of the law in this area.Rate this question:
- 19.
STANDARD OF CARE changes depending on some special circumstances, namely;
- ILLNESS
- EMERGENCIES
- SPORTING INJURIES
- STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
- CHILDREN
- SPECIAL SKILLS
- A.
Wilsher v Essex HA
- B.
Bolitho v City & Hackney
- C.
Baker v Willoughby
- D.
Trmain v Pike
Correct Answer
A. Wilsher v Essex HAExplanation
Wilsher v Essex HA is the correct answer because it established the principle that a trainee must have the same standard of care as an experienced doctor. This means that even though a trainee may not have the same level of experience, they are still expected to provide the same standard of care as an experienced professional. This case is similar to the Nettleship v Weston case, which also dealt with the standard of care expected from a trainee.Rate this question:
- 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.
- The accident must be the kind that does not normally happen without negligence
- and Must have been under the D's control
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
In this explanation, it is stated that the burden of proof lies with the claimant and is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the claimant must prove that the defendant's actions fell below the standard of care required. The explanation also mentions the case of WARD v TESCO, where the claimant slipped on a yoghurt in Tesco and Tesco had to prove that they had exercised the necessary standard of care. However, Tesco failed to prove this and was found liable. Therefore, the statement "The accident must be the kind that does not normally happen without negligence and must have been under the D's control" is true.Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Apr 23, 2024Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 10, 2012Quiz Created by
Chriscullen
Back to top