Tort Law Cases and Principles Quiz

A legal principle in tort law that states that a defendant is liable for all harm caused by their negligence, even if the specific type of harm was not reasonably foreseeable.

The court found that the defendant was liable for the damage caused by the fire, but only for the damage that was reasonably foreseeable. This means that they were not liable for all the damage caused by the fire, only for the damage that they should have known was a risk of their negligence.

The court determined that the defendant was not liable for the damage caused by the fire because the fire was not reasonably foreseeable. This means they were not liable for all the damage caused by the fire because they did not know that their actions could lead to such a fire.

A legal principle that states that a defendant must take the victim as they find them, meaning that they are liable for all the harm caused by their negligence, even if the victim is more susceptible to harm due to a pre-existing condition.

The court held that the defendant was liable for the victim's cancer, even though it was triggered by a pre-existing condition, because they were responsible for the original burn.

A high standard of care in negligence law is owed to those whom the defendant knows or ought to know are especially vulnerable, such as individuals with disabilities.

A court case that explores the concept of foreseeability and the responsibility of defendants towards individuals with varying levels of skill, such as skilled professionals.

A landmark case exploring whether defendants can rely on common sense when assessing the risk of harm and the claimant's responsibility for protecting themselves.

The type of harm that is reasonably expected to occur due to the defendant's actions.

A case that demonstrates that the type of harm is more important than the specific way it occurs. The defendant was held liable because even though the specific accident was unexpected, the general type of harm (injury from the work site) was foreseeable.

A case that emphasizes the importance of foreseeing a general type of harm, even if the specific way it occurs is unexpected. The defendant was held liable for the harm caused because it was foreseeable children would play with the boat and risk some physical injury.

The concept of remoteness of damage is closely related to foreseeability. If the harm is considered too remote or unexpected, the defendant may not be held liable.

This case demonstrates that even if a small explosion was foreseeable, the defendant can still be held liable for the larger, unexpected explosion because the type of harm (explosion) was foreseeable.

The principle that foreseeability of harm extends to all physical and psychiatric harm resulting from negligence.

This case confirms the principle that 'personal harm' encompasses all physical and psychiatric harm.

A case emphasizing that foreseeability needs 'immediacy'. Just being apprehensive about a risk is not enough. There needs to be evidence that the foreseeable event is likely to cause psychiatric harm.

A legal principle for determining negligence that weighs three factors: (1) A duty of care is owed, (2) the duty was breached, and (3) it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care. If all three are met, negligence is proven.

A claim against the police for failing to prevent a crime, even if it caused harm. This usually doesn't succeed as courts consider it unfair to place that burden on the police, as they juggle many cases and resources.

An argument against imposing a duty of care in negligence cases, based on the potential for overwhelming lawsuits and financial burden on the defendant. This factor weighs heavily in public policy decisions, as some claims are considered too broad.

A scenario where courts consider the fairness of imposing a duty of care, usually involving public services or non-profit organizations. This is one prong of the tripartite test, balancing public interest with individual responsibility.

Where the court considers the proportionality between the harm caused and the duty of care imposed on the defendant. If the burden of preventing harm is disproportionate to the risk, then a duty might not be imposed.

A duty to act arises when a defendant creates a dangerous situation or makes the situation worse, even if they didn't initially cause the danger.

A duty to act arises when a defendant has control over a third party who is likely to cause harm to someone.

The absence of a duty to act when a defendant does not create the danger or have control over the harmful party.

The defendant's responsibility for the actions of a controlled third party, leading to harm, despite the defendant not directly causing the harm.

The level of care owed by a defendant to someone with a pre-existing vulnerability that makes them susceptible to greater harm.

The legal concept that a person's actions can create a duty to act even if they were not the original cause. This is crucial because it shifts the burden of responsibility.

The court assesses whether a defendant reasonably foresaw harm and took appropriate steps to prevent it.

A higher standard of care is expected from professionals in their field due to their specialized knowledge and skills.

A legal principle that states that a defendant is not generally liable for failing to act to prevent harm caused by a third party, even if the harm was foreseeable.

The law does not generally impose a duty on a person to protect another from harm, even if that harm is foreseeable. This is known as the principle of 'pure omissions.'

The defendant's actions created a situation where harm became unavoidable, even though they themselves did not directly cause the harm. In such cases, a duty to act may be imposed.

A special relationship between parties can create a duty to act to prevent harm to the other party. For example, police officers have a duty to protect each other.

A person must have taken responsibility for the other person's safety for a duty to act to arise.

A public body, like the police, can be held liable for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, even if that harm is caused by a third party, if it is fair, just and reasonable to do so.

If a police officer's inaction might lead to harm being suffered by a fellow officer, a duty to act arises. This is based on the principle that police officers have a responsibility to watch out for each other.

In cases where a defendant exerts control over a third party or assumes responsibility for their actions, a legal duty arises. This duty is owed to the third party and can be extended to others affected by their actions.

A rescuer who is injured while helping someone in danger might be owed a duty of care by the person who created the danger, even if the rescuer wasn't specifically invited.

The defendant must have a duty of care towards the rescuer if it was foreseeable that someone would come to the rescue. This duty applies even if the rescuer was not specifically asked to help.

When a defendant puts themselves in danger due to their negligence, a duty of care is owed to the rescuer who acts reasonably, even if they were not formally asked to help.

In circumstances where a defendant's negligence creates a dangerous situation, a duty of care is owed to the rescuer who acts reasonably. The rescuer does not need to be acting in a heroic manner, but must act reasonably.

A duty of care is generally not owed to rescue someone who is in danger. The law doesn't force people to be heroes, but it does protect those who voluntarily assist others.

Courts are cautious about holding rescuers responsible for negligence or contributory negligence. Their actions are often viewed with understanding and compassion for their efforts.

A rescuer who helps someone in a dangerous situation does not automatically assume responsibility for the injured person, even if they were not originally involved in the accident.