Tort Law Liability Quiz

A failure to act that cannot be interpreted as doing that act defectively.

A duty of care arises when someone creates a source of danger that could reasonably foresee harm to others, even if through a third party's actions.

A duty of care arises when someone voluntarily assumes responsibility for another person's safety and the person relies on that responsibility to their detriment.

Generally, there is no duty of care on the police to prevent harm to individuals, even when they are aware of a potential threat.

The police may be liable if their intervention actively makes the situation worse for the individual, for instance, by turning off a crucial safety device.

A duty of care can arise if the defendant voluntarily undertakes to care for another, and the other person relies on this, to their detriment.

A duty of care can arise when someone in control of another person, who causes damage, fails to prevent that harm.

A duty of care can arise when someone, through their actions, makes a situation worse, leading to harm.

Police officers are not generally liable for failing to prevent harm to individuals, even when they are aware of a threat.

Even though the police generally lack a duty to protect individuals, if their actions make the situation worse, they may be liable.

Public authorities, like government departments, are subject to the same liability laws as private individuals and businesses.

Public authorities (PAs) are generally treated like private individuals when it comes to duty of care (DoC). This means DoC is determined by the normal principles of negligence, not policy arguments.

If a PA actively harms someone, they may owe a DoC, just like any private individual would in similar circumstances.

PAs generally aren't liable for simply not acting, unless certain exceptions apply, just as with private individuals.

The court uses the 'Caparo test' (foreseeability, proximity, and fairness, justness, and reasonableness) and policy considerations when deciding if a DoC exists in novel situations or when established authority is challenged.

Social service authorities can be liable for causing psychological harm to children in their care, but typically not for failing to prevent harm to a child that is not in their care.

Education authorities can be liable for failing to identify and support a student's needs, creating a special relationship that establishes a DoC.

Highway authorities are usually not liable for failing to maintain roads or install safety features. The 'omissions rule' applies, and policy considerations emphasize individual responsibility.

Similar to private individuals, fire services can be liable if their actions worsen a situation (e.g., turning off sprinklers during a fire), creating a DoC.

A person who is directly threatened by the defendant's negligence, or reasonably believes they are in danger. This includes those who are physically hurt, and those who suffer psychiatric harm from a direct fear of personal injury.

A person who suffers psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing a traumatic event involving another person. They were not in actual danger themselves.

A legal principle that allows a plaintiff to recover damages for psychiatric harm, even if the exact nature of the harm was not foreseeable, as long as any personal injury (physical or psychiatric) was foreseeable.

A test used to determine if a duty of care exists for a secondary victim. It requires foreseeability of psychiatric harm to a person of normal fortitude, in addition to four specific factors being satisfied: closeness of the relationship to the victim, proximity to the accident, direct perception of the accident, and the nature of the shock experienced.

A duty of care can be owed to someone who suffers psychiatric harm due to a past event, even if the event itself wasn't directly threatening. The key is that the harm arises from a fear of future consequences.

A legal principle stating that generally, no duty of care exists for a person's inaction, failing to prevent harm to another. The law does not typically impose a positive duty to act.

A legal test to establish if a duty of care is owed, considering:(1) Proximity: closeness of relationship between the parties(2) Foreseeability: Was the harm a reasonable foreseeable consequence of defendant's actions?(3) Policy: Are there public policy reasons to impose a duty of care?

A legal doctrine that helps determine if a duty of care exists in novel situations. Courts look at existing precedents and incremental steps to decide if it's fair to impose a duty in this new circumstance.

A legal principle that balances the policy considerations against imposing a duty on the police to prevent harm, even when they have knowledge of a potential threat. This principle highlights the need to protect the police's operational independence and effectiveness.

A legal exception to the omissions principle that arises when the defendant has control over a third party who causes harm. This creates a duty to prevent the harm.

A legal exception to the omissions principle that arises when someone, through their actions, makes a situation worse, leading to harm. This creates a duty to act to prevent further harm.

The courts have usually discussed policy factors after considering omissions exceptions in dismissing a duty of care. This means they consider fairness, justice, and reasonableness, but also the wider implications of imposing liability, which are linked to policy factors, making it a complex decision-making process.

Rescuers are generally protected from volenti non fit injuria, meaning they can't be sued for voluntarily entering a dangerous situation. This applies if their rescue is reasonable and prompted by the defendant's negligence. Rescuers are considered heroes, not reckless fools.

The actions of rescuers are usually deemed a natural consequence of the defendant's negligence, meaning the chain of causation is not broken. Their actions are generally foreseeable, and the defendant's negligence is the root cause of the rescue attempt.

If a rescuer's actions are grossly unreasonable and disproportionate to the situation, even if prompted by the defendant's negligence, their actions may break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of liability. Their conduct must be sensible and reasonable.

It is generally against public policy to consider the birth of a healthy child as a damage, as it is considered a blessing. This is due to the sanctity of human life and the importance of family.

While the birth of a healthy child is not considered a damage, there can be compensation for the additional costs and burdens associated with raising a child with special needs resulting from medical negligence. This recognizes the unique challenges faced by families in such situations.