Self-test questions: Duty of Care

* not completed

. In which case will you find the classic "neighbour principle"?

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] correct incorrect

Peabody Donation Fund Governors v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd [1985] correct incorrect

Anns v Merton LBC [1978] correct incorrect

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] correct incorrect

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] correct incorrect

* not completed

. What is the 2 stage test from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] which was used to establish a duty of care in negligence?

Reasonable foreseeability and proximity. correct incorrect

Foreseeability and reasonable proximity. correct incorrect

Reasonable foreseeability and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. correct incorrect

Proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. correct incorrect

Reasonable proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. correct incorrect

* not completed

. What are the 3 stages of the classic Caparo v Dickman [1990] test used to establish the existence of a duty of care set out by Lord Bridge in the House of Lords?

Reasonably foreseeable that D's failure to take care could cause damage to the C, relationship of proximity between C & D & reasonable to recognise a duty on D to take reasonable care. correct incorrect

Reasonably foreseeable that D's failure to take care could cause damage to the C, damage not too remote & objectively fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty on D to take reasonable care. correct incorrect

Reasonably foreseeable that D's failure to take care could cause damage to the C, relationship of proximity between C & D & it's fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty on D to take reasonable care. correct incorrect

D causally responsible for damage to C, relationship of proximity between C & D & it's fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty on D to take reasonable care. correct incorrect

Damage caused by D, damage not too remote & objectively fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty on D to take reasonable care. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Jerica works stacking shelves for BigShop, a supermarket. One day she is climbing a set of steps provided by her employer, the steps collapse and she falls and injures her back. BigShop have not maintained the steps properly. Does BigShop owe Jerica a duty of care?

No, as an adult employee Jerica must look out for her own safety. correct incorrect

No, whilst it is reasonably foreseeable that Jerica might be harmed by BigShop's failure to take care, they lack a relationship of proximity. If a customer had been harmed then there would have been a sufficient relationship of proximity. correct incorrect

No, whilst it is reasonably foreseeable that Jerica might be harmed by BigShop's failure to take care, there is a relationship of proximity, but it would not be fair, just and reasonable to hold BigShop liable for this. correct incorrect

Yes, the employer/employee relationship is one of the established duty situations which does not require proof of the Caparo 3 stage test and is assumed by the Courts. correct incorrect

Yes, the neighbour principle applies and Jerica is someone who BigShop should have had in their reasonable contemplation when directing their minds to acts/omissions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Felix works in a hazardous environment where he is exposed to asbestos dust. His employer admits that it is in breach of its common law duty by exposing him to asbestos dust when he contracts mesothelioma. His wife Amelia regularly washes his clothes and suffers from pulmonary injury from her secondary exposure. Amelia argues that the employer owes her a duty of care - is this correct?

Yes, the employer owed a duty to both their employee and their family. correct incorrect

Yes, the employer owed a duty to both their employee and anyone who might reasonably have come into contact with the dust, which included any family member. correct incorrect

Yes, it was reasonably foreseeable that Amelia would wash the clothes and thereby come into contact with the dust, as the family member of their employee there was sufficient proximity and it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. correct incorrect

No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Amelia would wash the clothes and thereby come into contact with the dust so Amelia was not someone they could foresee as at risk from their behaviour. correct incorrect

No, while it was reasonably foreseeable that Amelia might come into contact with the dust, it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Dr. Futcher advises Gavin (a professional footballer) that he needs a knee operation. Gavin takes the advice and undergoes the operation, which is unsuccessful, and Gavin is unable to return to professional football. Gavin's employer, the football club, sues Dr. Futcher on the basis that the advice to have the surgery was negligent and if he had been treated differently, he would have been able to return to playing football within 6 months. Will the football club be able to bring a successful claim against the doctor?

Yes, this is a clear case of an established duty of care and the doctor would be liable. correct incorrect

Yes, it was reasonably foreseeable that the football club would suffer some loss if Gavin was negligently treated and they should therefore be able to recover damages as it is fair, just and reasonable to do so. correct incorrect

Yes, it was reasonably foreseeable that the football club would suffer some loss if Gavin was negligently treated and as Gavin's employer there was a relationship of proximity, so they should therefore be able to recover damages. correct incorrect

No, while it was reasonably foreseeable that the football club would suffer some loss if Gavin was negligently treated, and there would be proximity, it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. correct incorrect

No, while it was reasonably foreseeable that the football club would suffer some loss if Gavin was negligently treated, there is insufficient proximity between the club and the doctor, nor is it fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty. correct incorrect

* not completed

. A police officer is running through a busy shopping street chasing a suspected robber. The police officer catches up with the suspected criminal and knocks her to the floor, but in the struggle they knock into Irene, an elderly woman out shopping. Irene ends up underneath both the police officer and the suspected criminal and suffers a broken wrist as a result. Irene would like to sue the police force on the grounds of negligence; will Irene be successful in her claim?

Yes, police owe a duty of care, and this was a positive act with a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury if an arrest of a suspect takes place in a busy street. correct incorrect

Yes, police owe a duty of care towards victims, witnesses or suspects in the manner of the investigation of offences, and to protect individuals from harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties. correct incorrect

No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Irene or any other pedestrian would be harmed by apprehending a suspect, so no duty of care is owed. correct incorrect

No, there is no duty of care owed to potential witnesses like Irene and the fact that she suffered physical harm is irrelevant. correct incorrect

No, irrespective of any negligence by the police, police have an immunity from suit in relation to negligence. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Leslie is a doctor and assists a young woman Penny at the roadside who is having an epileptic fit. She calls 999 for an ambulance and the call handler assures Leslie that this will be a high priority and that an ambulance will be despatched immediately and should be with her in around 5 minutes. Leslie waits and the ambulance service does not arrive for 90 minutes, Leslie would have acted differently if she had known the expected time delay. Penny suffers injuries during her fit. Penny wants to bring a claim for negligence against the ambulance service for their failure to act, will she be successful?

Yes, the ambulance service are liable for their failure to turn up for 90 minutes, and would have been liable even if the call handler had not given the assurance as to the time. correct incorrect

Yes, the assurance provided by the call handler gave rise to a sufficiently close relationship of proximity so as to give rise to a duty of care in this situation, and it was reasonably foreseeable that Penny would suffer harm if the ambulance service failed to act. correct incorrect

No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Penny would suffer harm by a delay in the ambulance arriving at the scene, so no duty of care is owed. correct incorrect

No, there is no duty of care owed to Penny as the relationship between her and the ambulance service lacked sufficient proximity. correct incorrect

No, irrespective of any negligence by the ambulance service, they have an immunity from suit in relation to negligence as they are acting in the course of an emergency. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Elsa attends her local A&E department with a head injury, on arrival she explains to the receptionist that she has been struck on the head and feels like she is about to collapse and needs urgent attention. she speaks to the receptionist and is told that there will be a 4 hour wait to be seen. Normal practice was that where a patient had suspected head injuries they would be seen by a triage nurse within the first 30 minutes, and the receptionist knew that this was normal practice. The information about the 4 hour wait was incorrect. After 25 minutes, Elsa feels so ill that she decides to go home to lie down, she does not tell anyone in the department that she is leaving. Her condition deteriorates and she collapses and is returned to hospital by ambulance, where it transpires she has suffered a bleed on the brain and consequently suffers long-term neurological problems. If she had remained in the A&E department then she would have been seen within 30 minutes, and would have been asked to wait, but her collapse would have occurred within the hospital and treatment would have been undertaken immediately, and on balance she would have recovered fully. Which is the correct statement of the law?

The duty of care between the hospital and patient arises as soon as she is booked in and is owed by any member of staff and they should take reasonable care not to cause the patient (Elsa) further injury. This is an established duty of care. correct incorrect

There is a duty of care between the receptionist and the patient Elsa, and is her personal duty given the fact that the information was factually incorrect. Elsa can therefore sue the receptionist personally for negligence; this is not an established duty of care. correct incorrect

Elsa's actions in leaving the hospital without telling anyone are an intervening act and break the chain of causation, so no liability exists. correct incorrect

The receptionist's duty is limited to the accurate completion of the registration form, and provision of waiting times was a courtesy not a right, so there is no assumption of legal responsibility if this information was inaccurate. correct incorrect

The established duty is between the medical staff and Elsa as a patient, and the administrative and non-medical staff do not owe Elsa a duty of care. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Adam has a new hoverboard. He decides to try it out on the grass outside the University lecture theatre. Adam climbs on the hoverboard, starts well, but loses control and crashes into Becky who is stood nearby watching him. Becky falls over and breaks her ankle. Does Adam owe Becky a duty of care?

No, this is not an established duty situation and is just a freak accident with no liability. correct incorrect

No, Adam would only be liable if it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would get hurt and Becky is outside the zone of danger, so the harm was not reasonably foreseeable. correct incorrect

Yes, it was reasonably foreseeable that Becky or someone in the area might be injured, and there is clear proximity, and no reason not to impose a duty of care in the circumstances. correct incorrect

Yes, pedestrians are automatically owed a duty of care by all users of wheeled vehicles. correct incorrect

Yes, this is an established duty of care situation. correct incorrect

* not completed

. The water company needs to repair a pipe and digs a hole in the pavement. The hole is surrounded by fencing and warning signs. Unfortunately, one of the workers has left a long-handled spanner on the ground. Emmett is registered as visually impaired and uses a white stick to navigate his way around. He does not see the spanner and trips over and breaks his ankle. What is the correct statement of the law in relation to the duty of care here?

This is an established duty situation, where the utility company owes a duty of care to everyone in the area. correct incorrect

It is reasonably foreseeable that a person with a visual impairment would be walking along the street, therefore a duty of care is owed to Emmett. correct incorrect

It would not be fair, justice and reasonable to hold the Defendant responsible for all pedestrians if they are in their proximity, if they have impairments, therefore there will be no duty of care owed to Emmett. correct incorrect

It is not reasonably foreseeable that a person with a visual impairment would be walking along the street, so there is no duty of care owed to Emmett. correct incorrect

There can be no duty of care as Emmett has voluntarily assumed the risk of accidents when he chooses to walk along the pavement. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Aqib is driving his car along a road, he uses his mobile phone while driving and crashes his car into Brianna's vehicle before spinning into a tree in Cara's garden. To which of the following people does he NOT owe a duty of care

Brianna the driver of the other car. correct incorrect

Brianna's daughter Delia who is a passenger in the car. correct incorrect

Cara who is not at home at the time of the accident. correct incorrect

Eric, Cara's husband who is working in the garden at the time of the accident but is unhurt. correct incorrect

Freya who observes the accident from the third floor of a block of flats at the end of the street. correct incorrect

* not completed

. In the case of Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] the Supreme Court had to consider whether the MoD owed a duty of care to soldiers in respect of failure to protect them and by failing to provide adequate equipment and training. What did the Supreme Court decide?

Decisions such as these are covered by combat immunity, so the soldiers could not succeed in their claim. correct incorrect

It would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the MoD. correct incorrect

Art.2 of ECHR does not apply when the soldiers are in combat outside the European Union. correct incorrect

Art. 2 of ECHR meant there was a duty in law to protect the soldiers' lives even when abroad. The MoD were liable for failing to properly protect soldiers they sent to war. correct incorrect

While it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the MoD, there is a lack of proximity in their relationship. correct incorrect

* not completed

. How do the cases of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] apply in relation to police liability in negligence?

Hill provides an immunity from suit for the police, Robinson has followed the precedent. correct incorrect

Hill provides an immunity from suit for the police, so cases against the police fail the 3^rd stage of the Caparo test, Robinson has followed the precedent. correct incorrect

Hill is authority for the fact that the police do not owe a duty of care, in the absence of special circumstances, to protect the public from harm through the performance of their function of investigating crime, whereas Robinson related to a positive act, not an omission, so the reasonably foreseeable risk of injury was enough to impose a duty of care on the police. correct incorrect

Hill is authority for the fact that the police do not owe a duty of care in the investigation of crime, for positive acts or omissions, and Robinson falls clearly within that precedent as the police were engaged in a positive act. correct incorrect

Hill and Robinson are both authority for the fact that whilst police do not owe a duty of care to protect the public from harm through the performance of their function of investigating crime, they remain liable for positive acts in which there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury as there is a duty of care on the police. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following situations are NOT examples of an established duty of care?

Patient and medical professional correct incorrect

Employer and employee correct incorrect

Manufacturer and consumer correct incorrect

Police and victim of crime correct incorrect

Driver and passenger correct incorrect