Tort Law: Negligence (Duty Of care)

Reviewed by Editorial Team
The ProProfs editorial team is comprised of experienced subject matter experts. They've collectively created over 10,000 quizzes and lessons, serving over 100 million users. Our team includes in-house content moderators and subject matter experts, as well as a global network of rigorously trained contributors. All adhere to our comprehensive editorial guidelines, ensuring the delivery of high-quality content.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Chriscullen
C
Chriscullen
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 12 | Total Attempts: 2,636
| Attempts: 768
SettingsSettings
Please wait...
  • 1/16 Questions

    Historically, this case established the whole topic of NEGLIGENCE. Decomposed snail in the bottom of a ginger beer bottle...

    • Donoghue v Stevenson
    • Manufacturer v Consumer
    • Donoghue v M&S Cafe
    • Debenhams v Stevenson
Please wait...
About This Quiz

I hope to cover a skeleton of everything you'll need to cover either an ESSAY or a PROBLEM on Negligence in this quiz and the other two in the series.

Negligence Quizzes & Trivia

Quiz Preview

  • 2. 

    Winfield and Jolowicz: Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal ______ to take care which causes damage to the claimant.

    Explanation
    The correct answer is "duty." In the context of negligence as a tort, duty refers to the legal obligation or responsibility to take care. When this duty is breached, and it causes damage to the claimant, it can be considered negligence. The other options, "duti" and "dutie," are misspellings of the word "duty" and do not accurately represent the correct answer.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    A Duty of Care is already recognised in the following relationships:
    1. EMPLOYER > EMPLOYEE
    2. PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR > CLIENT
    3. SCHOOL > PUPIL
    4. DRIVER > PEDESTRIAN
    5. DOCTOR > PATIENT
    If the client doesn't fit into those categories; this case established a 3-stage test to establishing a duty...

    • Vowles v Evans

    • Margereson v JW Roberts Ltd

    • Caparo v Dickman

    • Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

    Correct Answer
    A. Caparo v Dickman
    Explanation
    Caparo v Dickman is a case that established a 3-stage test for determining the existence of a duty of care in situations where the relationship does not fit into the recognized categories mentioned in the question. The test includes the following stages: foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care. This case is relevant in situations where a duty of care needs to be established in non-traditional relationships or circumstances.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    So you can be liable by not acting in some circumstances. Can you be ever liable for somebody elses actions?

    • Yes

    • No

    Correct Answer
    A. Yes
    Explanation
    Yes, you can be liable for somebody else's actions under certain circumstances. One such circumstance is when you have a legal duty to control the actions of that person, such as being their employer or supervisor. In these cases, if the person you are responsible for causes harm or engages in wrongful conduct, you can be held liable for their actions. Additionally, if you aid, encourage, or participate in the wrongful actions of another person, you can also be held legally responsible for their behavior. Therefore, it is possible to be liable for somebody else's actions depending on the specific circumstances involved.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    The CAPARO three stage test includes:
    1. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
    2. PROXIMITY
    3. JUSTICE
    In this case, the defendant (British Boxing Board of Control BBBC) was seen to have created a sufficient proximity (closeness in relationship) to the claimant boxer to have a duty to care properly for injuries sustained during the fight. The boxer suffered severe brain damage as a result of the inadequate ringside medical attention. Who was the boxer?

    • Michael Watson

    • Chris Eubank

    • Ricky Hatton

    • Errol Christie

    Correct Answer
    A. Michael Watson
    Explanation
    The boxer in this case was Michael Watson. The question provides information about a case where the defendant, the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC), was found to have a duty of care towards the claimant boxer. The boxer, Michael Watson, suffered severe brain damage due to inadequate medical attention during the fight. The explanation clarifies the identity of the boxer involved in the case.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
    1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
    2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
    3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
    4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
    Seven boys escaped from a training camp where they stole the claimants boat and damaged other boats. The Borstal officers (training operator) were held liable for the actions of the 3rd party as they were under the officers care.

    • Home Office v Dorset Yacht

    • Home Office v Plymouth Yacht

    • Home Office v Brighton Yacht

    • Home Office v Poole Yacht

    Correct Answer
    A. Home Office v Dorset Yacht
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Home Office v Dorset Yacht because in this case, the Home Office (defendant) had a special relationship with the claimant (Dorset Yacht) as they were responsible for the care and supervision of the boys at the training camp. The boys' actions of escaping and damaging the boats occurred while they were under the care of the Borstal officers, making the Home Office liable for the acts of the third party.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    The NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE is that; You must take [1 ] to avoid acts or omissions which you can [2 ] would be likely to injure your neighbour. Select the correct words to fill in the blanks

    • 1 - some care

    • 1 - reasonable care

    • 2 - reasonable foresee

    • 2 - foresee

    Correct Answer(s)
    A. 1 - reasonable care
    A. 2 - reasonable foresee
    Explanation
    The NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE states that individuals should exercise reasonable care to avoid actions or omissions that could potentially harm their neighbors. This means that people have a duty to take precautions and act responsibly to prevent foreseeable harm to others. The correct answer choices, "reasonable care" and "reasonable foresee," align with this principle by emphasizing the need for cautious and thoughtful behavior to prevent potential harm to one's neighbor.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    The CAPARO three stage test includes:
    1. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
    2. PROXIMITY
    3. JUSTICE
    In this case, the factory owner was liable for the asbestos emitted from their premises causing mesothemioma as they "ought to have reasonably known/foreseen that asbestos dust escaping could cause harm to the people in exposed to it in the surrounding streets.

    • Margarets v Seddon

    • Margereson v JW Roberts

    • Page v Mariners Ltd

    • Davis v JD Williams

    Correct Answer
    A. Margereson v JW Roberts
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Margereson v JW Roberts. The case of Margereson v JW Roberts established the principle of reasonable foreseeability in the context of the CAPARO three-stage test. The court held that the factory owner was liable for the harm caused by asbestos emissions because they should have reasonably known that asbestos dust could cause harm to people in the surrounding area. This case is significant in establishing the first stage of the CAPARO test, which requires the defendant to have reasonably foreseen the harm.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    The CAPARO three stage test includes:
    1. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
    2. PROXIMITY
    3. JUSTICE
    Would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant in the circumstances? In this case it was 1) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that the Rugby Referee not enforcing the rules could result in injury 2) The referee and player had REASONABLE PROXIMITY 3) It was FAIR, JUST and REASONABLE to impose a duty on the referee.

    • Vaughan v Menlove

    • Ultramares v Touche

    • Watson v BBBC

    • Vowles v Evans

    Correct Answer
    A. Vowles v Evans
    Explanation
    The correct answer is Vowles v Evans because it demonstrates all three stages of the CAPARO test. In this case, it was reasonably foreseeable that the referee not enforcing the rules could result in injury, there was reasonable proximity between the referee and the player, and it was fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty on the referee. This aligns with the requirements of the CAPARO test, making Vowles v Evans the appropriate answer.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public... Exceptions to this are:
    1. CONTROL
    2. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
    3. CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS
    In this case, a female police constable was attacked by a woman prisoner at a police station - and the police inspector just watched... The police force was held (vicariously) liable for the police inspector failing to act despite assuming responsibility to help his colleague.

    • Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

    • Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria

    • Haynes v Harwood CC

    • Dulieu v White

    Correct Answer
    A. Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria
    Explanation
    In Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria, the police force was held liable for the actions of a police inspector who failed to act and provide assistance to a female police constable who was being attacked by a woman prisoner. This case demonstrates an exception to the general rule that there is no liability to act for a stranger in public. The police inspector assumed responsibility to help his colleague, and therefore, the police force was vicariously liable for his failure to act.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
    1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
    2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
    3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
    4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
    The special relationship in this case was contractual between the claimant customer and defendant decorator. The decorator left the premises unsecured as he went to get more wallpaper. In this time, a theif entered and stole property. This contractual relationship was enough to make the decorator liable for the 3rd parties actions.

    • Haynes v Harwood

    • Stansbie v Troman

    • Smith v Littlewoods

    • Bourhill v Young

    Correct Answer
    A. Stansbie v Troman
    Explanation
    In the case of Stansbie v Troman, the defendant decorator had a special relationship with the claimant customer through a contractual agreement. The decorator left the premises unsecured while going to get more wallpaper, which created a source of danger. During this time, a thief entered and stole property. Due to the special relationship between the defendant and the claimant, the decorator can be held liable for the actions of the third party.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
    1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
    2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
    3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
    4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
    In this case, a disused cinema was set alight by vandals, damaging neighbouring properties. The cinema owner was not liable because he was not informed by police or the neighbouring properties that vandals often entered his property and vandalised it. He would have been liable if he knew this and didn't do anything to prevent them coming into the property.

    • Stansbie v Troman

    • Bourhill v Young

    • Smith v Littlewoods

    • Dulieu v White

    Correct Answer
    A. Smith v Littlewoods
    Explanation
    In the case of Smith v Littlewoods, the court held that the defendant was not liable for the damage caused by vandals because there was no special relationship between the defendant and the claimant or the third party. The defendant was not aware of the danger posed by the vandals and therefore had no duty to prevent their actions. This case highlights the principle that liability for acts of third parties generally requires a special relationship or knowledge of the danger.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
    1. Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
    2. a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
    3. CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
    4. FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
    In this case, a hurd of horses bolted towards a busy street of people. A police officer saw the horses and tried to stop them, but sustained injuries as a result. The defendant horse-keeper was liable for the third parties (horses) actions by creating a source of danger.

    • Stansbie v Troman

    • Bourhill v Young

    • Dulieu v White

    • Haynes v Harwood

    Correct Answer
    A. Haynes v Harwood
    Explanation
    In the case of Haynes v Harwood, the defendant was held liable for the actions of a third party (horses) because they created a source of danger. The defendant, who was a horse-keeper, failed to properly secure the horses, which resulted in them bolting towards a busy street and causing harm to the claimant, a police officer. This case demonstrates that when a defendant creates a source of danger, they can be held liable for the actions of third parties, especially if there is a special relationship between the defendant and the claimant.

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

    Now we've covered the three stage test to establishing a DUTY. If there is no duty then an omission holds no liability. The example given in this case is - there is no duty to shout at a somebody who is about to walk off a cliff with his head in the air to warn them of their danger... This sets out the general principle that Joe Bloggs in the public has no duty to act for a stranger.

    • Donoghue v Stevenson

    • Costello v Cheif Constable of Northumbria

    • Yuen Ken Yeu v AG of Hong Kong

    • Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

    Correct Answer
    A. Yuen Ken Yeu v AG of Hong Kong
    Explanation
    The case of Yuen Ken Yeu v AG of Hong Kong supports the statement that if there is no duty, then an omission holds no liability. In this case, it was established that the police had no duty to protect an individual from harm caused by a third party. Therefore, they were not liable for any omissions in providing protection. This case illustrates the general principle that individuals, such as Joe Bloggs in the given example, have no duty to act for a stranger.

    Rate this question:

  • 15. 

    So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public...(i.e. you can just stand and watch) Exceptions to this are:
    1. CONTROL
    2. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
    3. CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS
    In this case, a teacher was said to have control of a child - who had been left for ten minutes; in which time the child left the premises onto a main road - a lorry swerved, crashed and the driver died.

    • Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis

    • Costello v CC of Northumbria

    • Goldman v Hargrave

    • Stansbie v Troman

    Correct Answer
    A. Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis
    Explanation
    In the case of Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis, the teacher was deemed to have control over the child who left the premises and caused an accident resulting in the death of a driver. This case falls under the exception of "control" where a person can be held liable for the actions of another if they have control over them. Therefore, the correct answer is Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis.

    Rate this question:

  • 16. 

    So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public... Exceptions to this are:
    1. CONTROL
    2. ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
    3. CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS
    In this Australian case, a tree on a mans land was struck by lightening and caught fire. The tree was then cut down, and instead of extinguishing the fire with water, he left it to burn out. Wind re-ignited the fire and the fire spread onto neighbouring properties... He was seen to have adopted the risk by taking some steps. He also created a further risk by leaving the fire to burn out.

    • Haynes v Harwood

    • Stansible v Troman

    • Reeves v Australian County Council

    • Goldman v Hargrave

    Correct Answer
    A. Goldman v Hargrave
    Explanation
    In the case of Goldman v Hargrave, the individual was held liable for the spread of fire onto neighboring properties. The individual had adopted the risk by taking some steps to address the fire but failed to fully extinguish it, leaving it to burn out. This action created a further risk, leading to the fire spreading. Therefore, the case of Goldman v Hargrave supports the exception of "creation or adoption of risks" to the general rule of no general liability to act for a stranger in the public.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Mar 21, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • May 09, 2012
    Quiz Created by
    Chriscullen
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.