Tort Law: Negligence & Elements Quiz
24 Questions
1 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the 'But For' test primarily concerned with in legal causation?

  • Whether alternative sources contributed to the injury
  • Whether there were intervening causes
  • Whether the defendant acted negligently
  • Whether the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions (correct)

In the case of Breslin v Corcoran, what did the court determine regarding the car owner's liability?

  • The owner's actions were considered a proximate cause of the injuries.
  • The owner's negligence in securing the car contributed to the foreseeability of the accident. (correct)
  • The joyrider was solely responsible for the crash.
  • The owner was fully responsible for the injuries caused.

Which of the following cases dealt with the concept of multiple sufficient causes?

  • McGhee v National Coal Board
  • Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd (correct)
  • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
  • Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

What alternative approaches have been proposed to replace the 'But For' test in legal causation?

<p>Material contribution to the injury (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In which case was it determined that there could be multiple sources of causation that increase risk?

<p>Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'Novus Actus Interveniens' refer to in tort law?

<p>A new act that breaks the chain of causation (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

How is foreseeability related to negligence in the context of liability?

<p>It determines whether a duty of care exists. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Why might the 'But For' test be insufficient in certain legal cases?

<p>It does not account for multiple sufficient causes. (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the essential factor in determining liability according to the Wagon Mound No 1 decision?

<p>The reasonable foreseeability of the damage (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate, what did the House of Lords determine regarding a negligent defendant's liability?

<p>They will be liable regardless of the specific circumstances if the injury type is foreseeable (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What aspect of foreseeability did the judge address in Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd?

<p>Foreseeability should cover the general nature of injuries (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the principle behind the Egg Shell Skull Rule?

<p>Defendants are liable for all injuries resulting from a foreseeable condition of the plaintiff (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In the Burke v John Paul & Co case, what was the defendant's argument regarding foreseeability?

<p>Developing a hernia was too specific to foresee (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What factor determines remoteness of damage in negligence law?

<p>The reasonable foreseeability of the type of damage (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

In negligence cases, what does 'direct and proximate cause' refer to?

<p>The specific act that led to the injury (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is a key consideration regarding intervening acts in tort law?

<p>Intervening acts can absolve a defendant from liability (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'causation' refer to in tort law?

<p>The relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What principle is described by the 'egg-shell skull rule'?

<p>The victim's pre-existing conditions do not lessen the defendant's liability. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

When applying the 'but for' test, what does this test determine?

<p>If the plaintiff would have suffered harm regardless of the defendant's actions (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is meant by 'foreseeability' in negligence cases?

<p>Whether a reasonable person would anticipate the harm. (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Which statement best describes 'loss of a chance'?

<p>It acknowledges the loss of the opportunity for a better outcome due to negligence. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

How does the standard of proof in tort law differ from that in criminal law?

<p>The plaintiff has the burden of proof in tort law. (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What typically breaks the 'chain of causation' in a negligence case?

<p>An unforeseeable intervening act that leads to harm (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the role of foreseeability in determining liability?

<p>It helps assess whether a defendant should be liable for unexpected injuries. (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

Factual Cause

A necessary condition for an event to occur; if the defendant's actions weren't taken, the event would not have happened.

Legal Cause

The defendant's actions must be the primary cause of the plaintiff's harm, not just a contributing factor.

Multiple Sufficient Causes

When multiple factors can independently cause harm, and the defendant's actions are a significant contributing cause.

Material Contribution

The defendant's actions substantially increased the risk of harm, even if there are alternative contributing factors.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Novus Actus Interveniens

An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation, making the defendant no longer liable for the resulting harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

But-For Test

A legal test to determine if the defendant's actions were a necessary condition for the plaintiff's harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Increase of Risk

The defendant increase the risk of harm. Proving harm from a single cause or source

Signup and view all the flashcards

Breaking the Chain of Causation

An intervening event that makes the defendant no longer liable for the harm that befell the plaintiff.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Causation in Tort Law

Determining if a defendant's negligence directly caused a plaintiff's harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Egg-Shell Skull Rule

The defendant is responsible for the full extent of the harm, even if the plaintiff's pre-existing condition made them more vulnerable.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Loss of Chance

A legal concept where a plaintiff may recover damages if the defendant's negligence reduced their chances of a favorable outcome.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Chain of Causation

A series of events linking an action to a consequence.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Remoteness of Harm

Determining if the harm suffered is too distant from the defendant's actions to be considered their responsibility.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Standard of Proof (Civil Cases)

The level of certainty required for a plaintiff to prove a defendant's negligence caused their harm.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Loss of Chance Types

This is about a chance of positive outcome lost.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Reasonable Foreseeability

The test for remoteness of damage; a defendant is liable if a reasonable person could foresee the general type of harm, even if the precise way it happened wasn't foreseeable.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Wagon Mound (No. 1)

A key court case establishing that the type of damage must be foreseeable, not just the general risk of harm, for a defendant to be liable.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Case illustrating that a defendant is liable for harm of a foreseeable general nature, even if the specific accident details were unforeseeable.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd

Case emphasizing that foreseeability of the general nature of harm suffices for liability.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Burke v John Paul & Co

A case demonstrating the Egg Shell Skull Rule; a defendant is liable for all harm a plaintiff suffers if the general kind of injury is foreseeable, regardless of vulnerability.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Remoteness of Damage

The concept in negligence law that a defendant is only liable for the consequences directly flowing from their actions, not for all possible results.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Foreseeability of damage

The ability to predict the general kind of harm that might stem from a negligent act. Important for liability.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Study Notes

Tort Law: Negligence & Related Matters

  • This presentation covers negligence in tort law.
  • A review quiz for the last four lectures is included. The quiz covers introduction to tort law, four elements of negligence and duty of care, breach and standard of care, and causation and remoteness.
  • The four elements of negligence are duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, and legal causation.
  • Policy considerations and the purposes of tort law are examined as part of an introduction.
  • The different interests protected by tort law are discussed.
  • Distinctions between tort law, criminal law, and contract law are explored.
  • Key cases and legal precedent related to causation, remoteness and the "But for" test are detailed, including:
    • Kenny v O'Rourke
    • Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
    • Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores
    • Baker v Willoughby
    • Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd
  • The concept of multiple sufficient causes is examined along with potential problems with the "But for" test.
  • Examples included in the slides (e.g., a snail on a bottle, a police officer, a sports ball, a learner driver).
  • The 'Novus Actus Interveniens' (a new intervening act) concept and its applications in cases such as:
    • Breslin v Corcoran
  • The legal principle of 'remoteness of damage', including the Re Polemis case are discussed -The Re Polemis case established a direct consequence rule. This concept emphasizes a defendant's liability for all consequences arising out of negligent actions, regardless of foreseeable outcomes. Bankes LJ explained that the exact way the damage happened is immaterial. The issue of how precise the damage has to be in order to be foreseeable is addressed within the lecture. This concept is highlighted in Hughes v Lord Advocate, Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd, Wagon Mound No 1.
  • The 'egg-shell skull' rule, as outlined in Burke v John Paul & Co, illustrating that a defendant is responsible for all injuries as a result of negligence regardless of whether the victim is vulnerable or suffered pre-existing injuries.
  • The concept of "Loss of a Chance" discussed, and relevant cases including Chaplin v Hicks, Tabet v Gett, Lawson v Lafferière, Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, Gregg v Scott, and Philp v Ryan.
  • Tort standard of proof and its issues are described.
  • The role of expert medical testimony and the difficulties in assessing loss of chance in specific cases discussed.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

Related Documents

UCD Tort 4 Slides Remoteness PDF

Description

Test your knowledge on the fundamental aspects of negligence in tort law with this quiz. Covering essential topics such as duty of care, breach of duty, and notable legal cases, this quiz is designed for students who want to deepen their understanding of tort law. Challenge yourself and see how well you grasp the core principles discussed in the recent lectures.

More Like This

Negligence and Delict: Legal Concepts Quiz
12 questions

Negligence and Delict: Legal Concepts Quiz

ThriftyMetonymy avatar
ThriftyMetonymy
Breach of Duty: Types and Definitions
6 questions

Breach of Duty: Types and Definitions

GuiltlessNaïveArt avatar
GuiltlessNaïveArt
Tort Law
185 questions

Tort Law

ModernAcer avatar
ModernAcer
Tort Law Duty Quiz
41 questions

Tort Law Duty Quiz

EnthralledBananaTree avatar
EnthralledBananaTree
Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Open
Browser
Browser