Chapman v Hearse is authority for the proposition that: A) rescuers should not become involved where there has been a breach of duty of care B) it is necessary to show that the pre... Chapman v Hearse is authority for the proposition that: A) rescuers should not become involved where there has been a breach of duty of care B) it is necessary to show that the precise manner in which injuries are sustained was reasonably foreseeable C) where there is a sequence of events following a defendant’s negligence it is not possible to succeed in an action of torts D) it is not necessary to show that the precise manner in which injuries are sustained was reasonably foreseeable Read more

Understand the Problem

The question is asking for information about the legal case Chapman v Hearse and its implications regarding duty of care and negligence in tort law. Specifically, it seeks to determine which of the provided options accurately reflects the legal principle established by the case.

More Information

Chapman v Hearse is a pivotal case in the area of tort law that demonstrates that while the exact way harm occurs doesn't have to be foreseeable, if harm was a foreseeable result of negligence, duty of care exists.

Tips

A common mistake is assuming that all specifics of an event must be foreseeable for negligence liability; however, it's often enough that some harm was foreseeable.

Sources

• Chapman v Hearse - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org
• Chapman v Hearse (1961) Case: A Summary - casejudgments.com