Tort Law: Negligence (Duty Of care)
-
Winfield and Jolowicz: Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal ______ to take care which causes damage to the claimant.
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.
Quiz Preview
- 2.
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
Correct Answer
A. Donoghue v StevensonExplanation
Donoghue v Stevenson is the correct answer because it is a landmark case that established the concept of negligence in the legal system. In this case, Mrs. Donoghue found a decomposed snail in the bottom of a ginger beer bottle and suffered illness as a result. The court ruled that the manufacturer, Stevenson, owed a duty of care to consumers like Mrs. Donoghue and was negligent in ensuring the safety of their products. This case set a precedent for future negligence claims and highlighted the responsibility of manufacturers to consumers.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
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 foreseeExplanation
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:
-
- 4.
A Duty of Care is already recognised in the following relationships:
- EMPLOYER > EMPLOYEE
- PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR > CLIENT
- SCHOOL > PUPIL
- DRIVER > PEDESTRIAN
- DOCTOR > PATIENT
-
Vowles v Evans
-
Margereson v JW Roberts Ltd
-
Caparo v Dickman
-
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
Correct Answer
A. Caparo v DickmanExplanation
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:
- 5.
The CAPARO three stage test includes:
- REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
- PROXIMITY
- JUSTICE
-
Margarets v Seddon
-
Margereson v JW Roberts
-
Page v Mariners Ltd
-
Davis v JD Williams
Correct Answer
A. Margereson v JW RobertsExplanation
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:
- 6.
The CAPARO three stage test includes:
- REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
- PROXIMITY
- JUSTICE
-
Michael Watson
-
Chris Eubank
-
Ricky Hatton
-
Errol Christie
Correct Answer
A. Michael WatsonExplanation
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:
- 7.
The CAPARO three stage test includes:
- REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
- PROXIMITY
- JUSTICE
-
Vaughan v Menlove
-
Ultramares v Touche
-
Watson v BBBC
-
Vowles v Evans
Correct Answer
A. Vowles v EvansExplanation
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:
- 8.
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 KongExplanation
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:
-
- 9.
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:
- CONTROL
- ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
- CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS
-
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis
-
Costello v CC of Northumbria
-
Goldman v Hargrave
-
Stansbie v Troman
Correct Answer
A. Carmarthenshire CC v LewisExplanation
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:
- 10.
So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public... Exceptions to this are:
- CONTROL
- ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
- CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS
-
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 NorthumbriaExplanation
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.
So there is no general liability to act for a stranger in the public... Exceptions to this are:
- CONTROL
- ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
- CREATION OR ADOPTION OF RISKS
-
Haynes v Harwood
-
Stansible v Troman
-
Reeves v Australian County Council
-
Goldman v Hargrave
Correct Answer
A. Goldman v HargraveExplanation
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:
- 12.
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. YesExplanation
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:
-
- 13.
Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
- Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
- a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
- CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
- FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
-
Haynes v Harwood
-
Stansbie v Troman
-
Smith v Littlewoods
-
Bourhill v Young
Correct Answer
A. Stansbie v TromanExplanation
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:
- 14.
Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
- Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
- a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
- CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
- FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
-
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 YachtExplanation
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:
- 15.
Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
- Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
- a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
- CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
- FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
-
Stansbie v Troman
-
Bourhill v Young
-
Dulieu v White
-
Haynes v Harwood
Correct Answer
A. Haynes v HarwoodExplanation
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:
- 16.
Acts of Third Parties can make you liable in the following circumstances:
- Where there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE CLAIMANT
- a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE 3rd PARTY
- CREATED A SOURCE OF DANGER
- FAILING TO ABATE A KNOWN DANGER
-
Stansbie v Troman
-
Bourhill v Young
-
Smith v Littlewoods
-
Dulieu v White
Correct Answer
A. Smith v LittlewoodsExplanation
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:
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, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 09, 2012Quiz Created by
Chriscullen
Back to top