* not completed

. Which of the following is not a type of intervening act?

An act of the claimant correct incorrect

An act of the defendant correct incorrect

A natural event correct incorrect

An act of the third party correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following statements describes the thin skull rule?

It pertains to physical or psychological vulnerability of the claimant correct incorrect

It pertains to financial vulnerability of the claimant correct incorrect

It means that the claimant must take the defendant as he finds him correct incorrect

It means that the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following cases is the odd one out?

Weiland v Cyril Lord Carpets correct incorrect

Knightley v Johns correct incorrect

McKew v Holland correct incorrect

Wright v Lodge correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following is true of the decision in Home Office v Dorset Yacht?

The chain of causation was broken because the act of the vandals was not very likely to happen correct incorrect

The chain of causation was not broken because the act of the vandals was very likely to happen correct incorrect

The chain of causation was not broken because the act of the vandals was not very likely to happen correct incorrect

The chain of causation was broken because the act of the vandals was very likely to happen correct incorrect

* not completed

. The Wagon Mound (No I) establishes which principle for determination of remoteness?

Direct consequences correct incorrect

Proximity correct incorrect

Fair just and reasonable correct incorrect

Reasonable foreseeabilty of the kind of damage correct incorrect

* not completed

. The law of causation in negligence has a strong connection to:

The defence of contributory negligence correct incorrect

Breach of duty correct incorrect

Duty of care correct incorrect

Policy correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which case is the odd one out?

Smith v Leech Brain correct incorrect

Jolley v Sutton LBC correct incorrect

Tremain v Pike correct incorrect

Hughes v Lord Advocate correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following is not true of Jolley v Sutton LBC?

The damage was held to be unforeseeable correct incorrect

The case concerned the activity of children correct incorrect

The defendants were occupiers of the land on which the accident occurred correct incorrect

The damage was held to be within the scope of foreseeability correct incorrect

* not completed

. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle?

That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect

That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect

That the type of the damage but not the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect

* not completed

. Stansbie v Troman is a case relevant to causation and to which other legal issue?

Pure economic loss correct incorrect

Thin skull rule correct incorrect

Breach of duty correct incorrect

Duty of care for omissions correct incorrect