Chapter 11 Multiple choice questions

. In order to succeed in an action for negligence it is necessary for a claimant to establish whether:

The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty of care and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty.

The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty of care and the claimant suffered a loss.

The defendant was careless and as a result caused damage to the claimant.

The defendant caused reasonably foreseeable damage to the claimant. It is up to the defendant to prove that he did not owe the claimant a duty of case and he did not breach that duty.

. In which case was the 'neighbour principle' set down to determine whether a duty of care was owed for negligently inflicted loss?

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd (1964)

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

McLoughlin v O'Brian (1982)

Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)

. Which one of the following statements is incorrect?

In English law there is generally no duty for failing to act even if another person suffers as a result.

When considering whether to extend of the duty of care in new situations concerning public bodies a court must take account the Human Rights Act 1998.

In English law it is never possible to recover damages for pure economic loss.

The Compensation Act 2006 does not change the law in respect of breach of a duty of care.

. In claims for psychiatric injury a distinction is made between primary and secondary victims. What is a secondary victim?

A person who reasonably believed themselves to be under actual threat of bodily harm.

A person who has their possessions damaged in an accident.

A person who has no right to make a claim for negligence.

A person who suffers a psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing an accident or its 'immediate aftermath'.

. Can a rescuer who suffers a psychiatric illness as a result of helping at the scene of an accident be classed as a primary victim?

Yes, a rescuer is always classed as a primary victim.

Yes, but only if the rescuer was, or reasonably believed himself to be, in danger of physical injury.

No, a rescuer can never make a claim for psychiatric illness suffered as a result of helping at the scene of an accident.

No, a rescuer is always classed as a secondary victim.

. Emily had just passed her driving test when she negligently knocks over a cyclist. What standard of care will Emily be judged by?

The standard of a newly qualified driver, Emily's lack of experience will be taken into account.

Emily will be judged using a subjective test.

The standard of a competent driver, Emily's lack of experience will not be taken into account.

It will depend on the seriousness of the harm caused to the cyclist.

. When deciding whether a duty of care has been broken the court will take into account a number of different factors. Which one of the following will the court not take into account?

The financial position of the defendant.

The potential seriousness of the harm that is likely to be caused.

The probability of harm being caused to the claimant.

The reasonableness/practicalities of taking precautions to prevent the harm occurring.

. Which of the following statements is not correct?

A claim for negligence is a civil claim; the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached the duty of care.

Where a claimant relies on the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' (the thing speaks for itself) the defendant must show the he did not breach his duty of care.

The standard of care required by a defendant is an objective test.

The standard of care required by a defendant is a subjective test.

. Matt, a hypochondriac, attended the hospital complaining of stomach pains. Dr Julie, who had seen Matt on numerous other occasions refused to see him. Matt died that night. It was discovered he was suffering from poisoning from which there was no antidote. Is Dr Julie liable in negligence?

Yes, because she failed to examine Matt.

No, because a doctor does not owe a duty of care to hypochondriac patients.

Yes, because doctors owe a duty of care to all patients.

No, because there must be a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

. What is meant by the 'Eggshell Skull' principle?

The injury or damage to the claimant must be reasonable foreseeable.

If a claimant has a particular susceptibility or weakness and suffers a greater injury than a normal person, the defendant will be liable for injuries that a normal claimant would have suffered.

. The defendant is not liable for any damage cause to the claimant because the claimant had a weak skull.

If a claimant has a particular susceptibility or weakness and suffers a greater injury than a normal person, the defendant will be liable to the full extent of the claimant's injuries.

Quiz Content