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: Public Bodies
Quiz Content
*
not completed
.
Which of the following are
NOT
included within the definition of a public body or authority?
Government departments.
correct
incorrect
Armed forces.
correct
incorrect
Charities
correct
incorrect
NHS trusts
correct
incorrect
Local councils
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
What does "justiciability" mean in a negligence case involving a public body?
Whether the Courts should strike out a claim before asking if a duty of care should be owed.
correct
incorrect
Whether a duty of care is owed in a particular case.
correct
incorrect
Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty in a case.
correct
incorrect
Whether the
Caparo v Dickman
[1990] 3 stage test applies.
correct
incorrect
Whether there is an appeal process available for a Claimant.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Mario owns a block of flats. The building next door catches fire and the fire service are called. They extinguish the flames but leave some debris smouldering in the basement. This catches light and sets light to Mario's building. Mario wants to bring a claim in negligence against the fire service, is he likely to succeed?
Yes, the emergency services are liable in negligence in the same way as any other Defendant.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the fire service are liable if they attend and are then negligent.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the fire service are liable if they attend and by a positive act do something which makes the situation worse.
correct
incorrect
No, the fire service are not liable as they have no obligation to respond and no obligation to take reasonable care having attended at a fire.
correct
incorrect
No, the fire service are not liable because the property would be insured, so there are public policy reasons for not imposing liability.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Louie's home is next door to a warehouse. The fire service are called out to a fire in the warehouse, and decide to turn off the sprinklers to avoid causing water damage to the contents of the warehouse. As a result of this act, the fire spreads to Louie's home and burns down his house. Is Louie likely to succeed in a claim for negligence against the fire service.
Yes, the emergency services are liable in negligence in the same way as any other Defendant.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the fire service are liable if they attend and are then negligent.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the fire service are liable if they attend and by a positive act do something which makes the situation worse.
correct
incorrect
No, the fire service are not liable as they have no obligation to respond and no obligation to take reasonable care having attended at a fire.
correct
incorrect
No, the fire service are not liable because the property would be insured, so there are public policy reasons for not imposing liability.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Giorgos lives in a remote farmhouse 10 miles from the nearest main road. Giorgos is injured by a lightning strike which also sets light to his home. He calls 999 and requests an ambulance and the fire service to attend. The call handler acknowledges that an ambulance and fire engine are required, but mis-classifies the call and neither the fire service nor the ambulance attend. Can Giorgos bring a successful claim against the fire service and the ambulance service for failing to attend to help him?
Yes, Giorgos can bring a successful claim against both the fire service and the ambulance service for failing to attend.
correct
incorrect
Yes, Giorgos can bring a successful claim against the fire service but not the ambulance service for failing to attend.
correct
incorrect
Yes, Giorgos can bring a successful claim against the ambulance service but not the fire service for failing to attend.
correct
incorrect
No, for public policy reasons the emergency services are immune from negligence suits.
correct
incorrect
No, Giorgos cannot bring a successful claim against either the fire service or the ambulance service for failing to attend.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Do the police have immunity from negligence claims?
Yes, the case of
Hill
makes this very clear.
correct
incorrect
Yes,
Hill
has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales.
correct
incorrect
Yes, there is immunity in relation to matters of police policy, but not operational matters.
correct
incorrect
No, there is a clear duty of care when the police cause damage or injury by a positive action and there are examples of breaches of duty of care into police policy as well as operational matters.
correct
incorrect
No, but there can only be liability in relation to positive actions causing damage or injury, not police policy matters.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Isla is a young woman who walks with crutches due to a long-term health condition. She is walking through a busy shopping centre when she is knocked to the ground by a police officer chasing a thief. Isla suffers serious injuries and wishes to bring a claim in negligence against the police, will she be successful?
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 place like a shopping centre.
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 Isla 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 Isla 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
.
Eloise was a police informant in relation to a drugs conspiracy. She provided evidence which helped to convict a number of members of a drug gang, and the police were aware that she was at personal risk if her identity should become known. Some paperwork containing Eloise's details were stolen from an unlocked police car, and her identity was disclosed to the criminals. Eloise was assaulted and subjected to a campaign of harassment. Eloise wishes to bring a claim in negligence against the police, will she be successful?
Yes, police owe a duty of care to protect individuals from harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the police have assumed responsibility for Eloise, so owe a duty of care.
correct
incorrect
No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Eloise would suffer harm, so no duty of care is owed.
correct
incorrect
No, there is no duty of care owed to informants like Eloise and the fact that she suffered physical harm is irrelevant.
correct
incorrect
No, police have an immunity from suit in relation to negligence on the basis of
Hill
.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Andy is a soldier in the armed forces and has been out drinking with fellow soldiers off duty. Andy collapses whilst drunk and his commanding officer arranges for him to be assisted back to his room. Andy was left unsupervised and slipped, suffering a head injury when his head struck a table. Andy would like to bring a claim in negligence against the Ministry of Defence, will he be successful?
Yes, the MoD is Andy's employer therefore automatically owes him a duty of care at all times.
correct
incorrect
Yes, by ordering someone to assist Andy back to his room, the officer (and therefore the MoD) assumed responsibility and have a duty of care.
correct
incorrect
No, the officer discharged any duty of care when he ordered that someone assist Andy back to his room.
correct
incorrect
No, there can be no duty of care owed when individuals have voluntarily got drunk; they must be responsible for the consequences.
correct
incorrect
No, there can be no duty of care owed by the MoD in relation to employees who are off duty.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Soldiers fighting in combat overseas allege that the Ministry of Defence have failed to properly equip their tanks and have failed to provide sufficient training to prevent "friendly fire" incidents where soldiers are shot at by their own army. Are the soldiers able to successfully argue their negligence claim against the Ministry of Defence?
No, the claims are non-justiciable and would open the floodgates to extensive litigation.
correct
incorrect
No, the complaints would be covered by combat immunity so cannot be heard by the Courts.
correct
incorrect
No, the claims occurred overseas, so are not within the jurisdiction.
correct
incorrect
Yes, combat immunity should be limited to active combat, so the claims can be heard.
correct
incorrect
Yes, there are no issues of justiciability as the MoD is the Claimants' employer, so there is automatically a duty of care.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Jonny is a teacher taking a party of schoolchildren on a canoeing trip. They get into difficulties paddling in open water at sea, with the children becoming separated and Jonny's canoe capsizes. Someone on shore calls the coastguard to assist the party, but they take over an hour to arrive and Jonny suffers injuries as a result. Can Jonny bring a successful claim against the coastguard?
Yes, the emergency services are liable in negligence in the same way as any other Defendant.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the coastguard are liable if they attend and are then negligent.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the coastguard are liable if they attend and by a positive act do something which makes the situation worse.
correct
incorrect
No, the coastguard are not liable as they have no obligation to respond and no obligation to take reasonable care if they do attend.
correct
incorrect
No, the coastguard are not liable because the group ought to be insured, so there are public policy reasons for not imposing liability.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Can a Claimant successfully bring a claim against a local education authority in relation to negligent assessment of educational needs?
No, the claim would not be justiciable.
correct
incorrect
No, there cannot be claims against local authorities as it would open the floodgates.
correct
incorrect
No, the claim would not be successful as causation would be too difficult to establish.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the local authority owes a duty of care to provide an education appropriate to a child's needs as an assumption of responsibility.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the person assessing would be a professional and therefore subject to the normal rules of professional negligence.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
Wendy and Bill are foster carers who regularly take children from the local authority on a temporary basis. They specifically tell the local authority that they will not accept any foster child into their home who was a known or suspected child abuser, as they have their own children. The local authority negligently places a teenage boy in their care who they knew had carried out sexual assaults against his own sister. The boy sexually assaults Wendy & Bill's children while in their care. Can Wendy & Bill successfully claim against the local authority on behalf of their children?
Yes, the local authority owes a duty of care to all foster carers.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the local authority owes a duty of care due to its express promise to the foster carers.
correct
incorrect
No, the local authority would owe a duty, but the boy's actions act as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act.
correct
incorrect
No, the local authority does not owe a duty of care in any circumstances, there is blanket immunity.
correct
incorrect
No, the claim would not be justiciable.
correct
incorrect
*
not completed
.
PC Blue is a traffic police officer driving a marked police patrol car. Whilst on duty he sees a vehicle being driven erratically, so gives chase to try and stop the vehicle. During the course of the pursuit PC Blue drives at speeds of up to 100 mph on the motorway, and skids on the wet road, colliding with the car he his chasing and crashing into another vehicle being driven by Rachel. Can Rachel bring a successful claim for damages in relation to this incident?
Yes, police owe a duty of care, and this was a positive act with a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury driving at speed on a motorway in wet conditions.
correct
incorrect
Yes, police owe a duty of care towards victims, witnesses or suspects in the manner of the investigation of offences or the prevention of crime, and to protect individuals from harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties.
correct
incorrect
No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Rachel or any other road user 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 Rachel 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
.
There is a spate of burglaries with a distinctive mode of entry (the offender appears to use a fishing rod through the letterbox to unlock the front door to gain entry) which the police have not investigated properly due to cuts in the forensic science budget which has prevented them from processing fingerprints at the scene. As a result the offender has not been arrested. Ethel is an elderly woman whose house is the latest house to be burgled in a similar manner. Ethel suffers injuries when she confronts the burglar who is in the process of stealing her jewellery box. The offender is caught after her burglary and charged with all of the burglary offences. Ethel would like to bring a claim in negligence against the police for failing to investigate the previous burglaries properly, which would have led to the earlier apprehension of the offender who broke into her home, will she be successful?
Yes, police owe a duty of care to protect individuals from harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties.
correct
incorrect
Yes, the police have assumed responsibility for Ethel as a vulnerable citizen, so owe a duty of care.
correct
incorrect
No, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Ethel would suffer harm, so no duty of care is owed.
correct
incorrect
No, there is no duty of care owed to victims of crime in relation to the manner of investigation of offences, the fact that Ethel suffered physical harm is irrelevant.
correct
incorrect
No, police have an immunity from suit in relation to all negligence claims on the basis of
Hill
.
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