home
Menu
Create
Random
0
0
0

Injury and Property - Statistics

Jump to: Answer Stats | Score Distribution | Your Scores
General Stats
  • This quiz has been taken 0 times
  • The average score is 0 of 33
Answer Stats
Hint Answer % Correct
D will have caused the damage in fact if, but for D’s negligence, the damage would not have occurred. Barnett v Chelsea
0%
D will have breached his duty if he did/didn't do something the RP would/wouldn't have done Blythe v Birmingham
0%
Professionals are not negligent where they have acted in accordance with a course of conduct supported by a substantial body of opinion within the profession, even if contrary views exist Bolam
0%
C will owe V a duty of care where there is a foreseeable risk of harm occurring to a neighbour, with a neighbour being someone C ought have considered when doing the act/omission. Donoghue v Stevenson
0%
A novus actus intervieniens can be either nature, an act of a third party, or C’s own act (though this rarely breaks the chain as CN). These will break the chain if they are not reasonably ______. foreseeable
0%
Neither the extent of the damage nor the way in which it occurred need be reasonably foreseeable Hughes v Lord Advocate
0%
D will be in breach where the size of the risk of harm (severity and probability) outweighs the cost of taking precautions Latimer
0%
Where D is a minor, the standard of care is of the RP of D's age Mullin v Richards
0%
Inexperienced/learners will be judged at the standard of a reasonably competent person Nettleship v Weston
0%
If a duty is ____ (doctor-patient; driver-pedestrian; manufacturer-consumer) do not waste time applying any test. Identify the duty and move on. obvious
0%
Where D knows of a special characteristic of C which makes them vulnerable, D will be expected to take extra care Paris v Stephney
0%
1. The aim of damages is to place C in a pre-tort position, not ____ D. punish
0%
The tree-part Caparo test ought only be used in novel scenarios (and so will probably never be used in the exam) Robinson v Yorkshire
0%
D need only take precautions against reasonably foreseeable risks Roe v MoH
0%
Where C has a pre-existing condition which means their injuries would be more severe, then D is liable for these injuries as well. Smith v Leech Brain
0%
D will have caused the damage in law if the general type of harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D’s negligence.
 The Wagon Mound
0%
A lower standard of care is expected in an emergency Watt v Hertfordshire
0%
An amateur undertaking a task will be compared to a reasonably competent amateur, not a professional employed in the field of the task being completed.
 Wells v Cooper
0%
1. DUTY OF CARE x
0%
. x
0%
. x
0%
2. BREACH x
0%
A breach of duty involves falling below the standard expected of the RP x
0%
. x
0%
. x
0%
3. CAUSATION x
0%
. x
0%
. x
0%
4. DAMAGES
 x
0%
2. C can claim compensation under the Damages Act 1996 for special damages e.g. any lost wages from work, any medical expenses incurred. x
0%
3 , C is also entitled to claim compensation for general damages, which include non-pecuniary losses e.g. (loss of amenity, pain and suffering) and pecuniary losses e.g. future loss of earnings and any future medical expenses. x
0%
4. It would be in C’s best interest to receive a lump sum payment if C has made/will likely make a full recovery. It would be in C’s best interest to receive a structured settlement in case C’s condition worsens as this would give C the right to apply back to court to raise her compensation level in view of her needs going forward.
 x
0%
5. C also has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss e.g. go back to work or find different work if she can no longer work her previous job. x
0%
No matching quizzes found
Score Distribution
Percent of People with Each Score
Percentile by Number Answered
Your Score History
You have not taken this quiz
Copyright H Brothers Inc, 2008–2026
Contact Us | Go To Top | View Mobile Site | Site Map