Skip to main content
United States
Jump To
Support
Register or Log In
Support
Register or Log In
Instructors
Browse Products
Getting Started
Students
Browse Products
Getting Started
Return to Subject Area Student Resources for Tort Law
Self-test questions: Breach of Duty
Quiz Content
*
not completed
.
The concept of the reasonable person is a legal fiction, but in which case was this definition provided?
"Negligence is the omission to do something a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."
Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks [1856]
correct
incorrect
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
correct
incorrect
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933]
correct
incorrect
Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943]
correct
incorrect
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999]
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Which of the following factors are disregarded or
not
taken into consideration when establishing the appropriate standard of care in a negligence claim?
Age
correct
incorrect
Physical disabilities
correct
incorrect
Acting in an emergency
correct
incorrect
Inexperience
correct
incorrect
Special skills
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Walter is a junior doctor on his second week in the job. In an emergency situation he makes a mistake in the dosage of medication which is prescribed for one of his patients Ezra when he misreads Ezra's charts; Ezra suffers physical harm as a result. What is the standard of care that the Court would expect of Walter to determine whether or not he has breached his duty of care?
The standard of an experienced junior doctor.
correct
incorrect
The standard of a junior doctor on his second week in the job.
correct
incorrect
The standard of a junior doctor acting in an emergency.
correct
incorrect
The standard of an inexperienced junior doctor acting in an emergency.
correct
incorrect
The standard of a junior doctor not acting in an emergency,
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Melanie is a 14 year old who is playing a game with her friend Emma, where they flick pen lids at each other. Melanie flicks one of the pen lids and it hits Emma in the eye, causing serious damage to her eye. What is the appropriate standard of care in this situation?
The standard of whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable adult in the defendant's situation would have realised this action gave rise to a risk of injury.
correct
incorrect
The standard of whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable teenager in the defendant's situation would have realised this action gave rise to a risk of injury.
correct
incorrect
The standard of whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 14 year old in the defendant's situation would have realised this action gave rise to a risk of injury.
correct
incorrect
The standard of whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable child would have flicked the pen lid, knowing or believing it to be potentially dangerous.
correct
incorrect
The standard of whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable adult in the defendant's situation would have flicked the pen lid, knowing or believing it to be potentially dangerous.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
George suffered with migraines, which developed in a similar way each time he suffered an attack, he would start feeling slightly nauseous, then the headache would start, before he would suffer visual disturbances. One day George began to feel as if a migraine was developing, and having reached the nausea and headache stage, he decided to drive to the shops. On his way there he began to suffer visual disturbances and crashed his car into a pedestrian crossing the road. There is clearly an established duty of care as George is a motorist. Has George breached his duty of care?
Yes, George would be in breach of duty if he fell below the standard of care of a reasonable driver who suffers from migraines, and continued to drive while aware that he was in the middle of a migraine attack.
correct
incorrect
Yes, George would be held to the standard of the reasonably impaired driver and has fallen below that standard.
correct
incorrect
No, George cannot breach the duty of care as a migraine is a variable condition, and so he has not fallen below the standard of the reasonable driver.
correct
incorrect
No, George cannot be responsible for a medical condition that is out of his control, so has not fallen below the standard of the reasonable driver.
correct
incorrect
No, the standard of care is that of the reasonable, careful and prudent driver and George did not fall below that standard.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Which case introduced a test for the standard of care for professionals being that of "the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill"?
Wilsher v Essex AHA [1987]
correct
incorrect
Bolam v Friern HMC [1957]
correct
incorrect
Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1977]
correct
incorrect
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]
correct
incorrect
Sidaway v Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985]
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
A mother is about to deliver her baby in a high risk pregnancy. She has not been informed by her consultant about the 10% risk of injury if she attempts a natural delivery rather than a surgical intervention by way of caesarean delivery. Her baby sustains serious injuries during the natural delivery. The consultant relies upon the Bolam test to show that she complied with accepted medical practice in not informing the mother of every significant risk of the procedure. Is the doctor in breach of her duty of care?
No, the consultant can rely upon the Bolam test, that this is accepted medical practice.
correct
incorrect
No, the consultant can rely upon the Bolam test, and the Bolitho refinement to show that as long as there is a responsible body of opinion which can be logically supported that would have done the same then there is no breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
No, the Bolam test would never apply in a situation relating to patient consent.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the Bolam test applies, but without prejudice of the patient's right to be informed of risks associated with a medical procedure, no matter how slight.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the Bolam test applies, but without prejudice of the patient's right to be informed of risks associated with a medical procedure for significant risks of 10% or more.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Jeremy lives next door to a community tennis club. The club has built a 10 foot high wall to keep the balls inside the club, and netting above that on a frame. In the last 20 years there have only been 5 instances of balls coming over the wall and through the netting. One day a ball comes over the wall and crashes through Jeremy's greenhouse shattering the glass and damaging his prize tomatoes. Is the tennis club in breach of their duty of care?
No, weighing the likelihood (once every 4 years is infrequent) and gravity of potential harm is low against the utility of the Defendant's conduct as a community sports club and the cost of precautions, there is no breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
No, weighing the utility of a community sports club against the low level of damage caused in this case, there is no breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
No, weighing the likelihood of harm (once every 4 years) against the reasonable precautions taken of building a high wall and netting, there is no breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
Yes, weighing the likelihood of harm which is frequent (once every 4 years) and the gravity which is potentially high with balls leaving the tennis club, against the utility of a community sports club which is good, but the club could have taken better precautions, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
Yes, weighing the likelihood of harm (not so infrequent as to be a rare occurrence), potentially high gravity of a person being hit by a ball, against the level of precautions taken, the wall could have been higher, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Helen is a scout volunteer leader, she organises a game in the dark where the scouts run around the room, with minimal lighting, trying to find objects hidden in the scout hut. Tom is a 13 year old scout who, whilst running in the dark, trips and falls breaking his arm. Have Helen and the Scout Association breached their duty of care to Tom?
No, weighing the likelihood of harm and gravity of potential harm being low against the utility of the Defendant's conduct as a voluntary organisation supporting young people and the cost of precautions, the utility of the organisation outweighs the risks of the activity, so no duty has been breached.
correct
incorrect
No, weighing the utility of a voluntary youth organisation against the low level of damage caused in this case, there is no breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
No, weighing the likelihood of harm against the reasonable precautions of not playing a game in the dark, there is no breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
Yes, weighing the likelihood of harm which was high and the gravity of harm against the utility of a voluntary organisation is good, but the club could have taken better precautions for example by not playing a game in the dark - there was no social or educative value in doing so, but it did increase the risk of injury, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
Yes, weighing the likelihood of harm which was high, the gravity of harm that came to pass, against the utility of the conduct and the level of precautions taken, the game did not need to be played in the dark, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
What statutes have been brought into effect to address the commonly held view that there is a compensation culture in existence in the UK, requiring the Courts to have regard to the wider impact of the assessment of standard of care in negligence?
Damages Act 1996 & Compensation Act 2006
correct
incorrect
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 & Compensation Act 2006
correct
incorrect
Compensation Act 2006 & Civil Liability Act 2018
correct
incorrect
Damages Act 1996 & Civil Liability Act 2018
correct
incorrect
Compensation Act 2006 & Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
What are the requirements for a Claimant to successfully use the Latin maxim
res ipsa loquitur
?
The only requirement is that the Defendant pleads res ipsa loquitur and that reverses the burden of proof.
correct
incorrect
The exact cause of the accident can't be determined and the Defendant was in control of the situation.
correct
incorrect
The exact cause of the accident can't be determined, damage would not normally occur without carelessness and the Defendant was in control of the situation.
correct
incorrect
Damage would not normally occur without carelessness and the Defendant was in control of the situation and would be expected to do so.
correct
incorrect
The exact cause of the accident can't be determined and damage would not normally occur without carelessness, so the Defendant must be responsible.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
BigShop is a large supermarket chain. Arika is a customer who slips on some spilled cream on the floor of an aisle in one of BigShop's supermarkets, she injures her back in the fall. Arika is unable to say how long the cream had been left spilled on the floor, but argues that BigShop have breached their duty of care to her as a customer by failing to clean it up or have procedures in place to do so. Are BigShop in breach of their duty of care?
Yes, this is a case of res ipsa loquitur which alters the burden of proof, so breach of duty is established.
correct
incorrect
Yes, this is a case of res ipsa loquitur and unless BigShop can provide an explanation negating the carelessness, the Court will consider that they have breached their duty of care.
correct
incorrect
No, this is not a case of res ipsa loquitur.
correct
incorrect
No, BigShop could not be expected to clean up every spill, so Arika cannot prove a breach of duty here.
correct
incorrect
No, BigShop are not in breach of duty here because Arika is unable to show that the spill was their responsibility.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Imran is driving his car at speed when he collides with Perry a motorcyclist. Perry is injured in the collision and his motorbike is damaged. Imran is charged with driving without due care and attention and convicted of the offence in his local Magistrates' Court. Perry brings a claim in negligence, how can he prove that Imran has breached his duty of care?
Perry cannot use the Civil Evidence Act 1968 as this does not apply to criminal cases.
correct
incorrect
Perry can use the Civil Evidence Act 1968 to prove that Imran has a criminal conviction, and Imran then must show that he was not negligent in the circumstances.
correct
incorrect
Imran's criminal conviction is admissible as evidence but does not establish a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
Perry cannot rely upon Imran's criminal conviction as it is inadmissible hearsay.
correct
incorrect
Perry can use the Civil Evidence Act 1968 to prove the facts of the criminal conviction which would establish a breach of duty that Imran is unable to disprove.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Sam is a fireman travelling to an emergency on a lorry carrying heavy equipment to rescue someone trapped under a vehicle in a road traffic accident. The equipment shifts in the back of the lorry as it is travelling and injures Sam. The vehicle was not adapted to carry this equipment as the suitably adapted fire appliance was already on a callout. Can Sam establish a breach of the duty of care?
Yes, there is a clear breach of duty, the likelihood of harm and potential gravity of harm were greater than the social utility in cutting corners to react in the emergency, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
Yes, putting a fireman in harm's way is not a fair trade-off with the saving of a third party, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
No, the balance of risk falls in favour of saving life or limb, over the risk to Sam the fireman, so no breach of duty can be established.
correct
incorrect
No, Sam consents to the risk of harm, he voluntarily agrees to travel on the fire appliance, knowing that the equipment is not properly secured.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the likelihood of harm and potential gravity of harm were greater than the cost of precautions, so there is a breach of duty.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
In
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
[2015] the Court considered the importance of informed consent to treatment, which requires a medical professional to inform a patient about risks associated with treatment which were or should have been known to the medical professional and whether a patient is informed of a particular risk depends upon whether that risk is material. What is the definition from the case about materiality of risk?
A risk somewhere in the region of 10% or more.
correct
incorrect
A risk which is not theoretical or minimal.
correct
incorrect
A significant risk which a reasonable medical professional would be aware of.
correct
incorrect
A risk which a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to, which the medical professional is reasonably aware of.
correct
incorrect
A risk with a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to.
correct
incorrect
Previous Question
Submit Quiz
Next Question
Reset
Exit Quiz
Review & Submit
Submit Quiz
Are you sure?
You have some unanswered questions. Do you really want to submit?
Back to top
Printed from , all rights reserved. © Oxford University Press, 2024
Select your Country