The principle which states that a claimant is to be judged according to a reasonable person
The principle which allows neighbours to resolve disputes
The principle which establishes whether a duty of care is owed to a claimant
The principle relating to good citizenship
Abdul, who suffers from vertigo, was injured falling from a crane whilst at work. It is later shown that the employer took precautions that would have been reasonable for the average worker and that the employer was aware of Abdul’s condition. What is the employer’s legal position in respect of whether a duty of care was breached?
The employer is in breach because of the ‘eggshell skull principle’
The employer is not in breach since the standard of care had been met
The employer is in breach since a higher standard of care was owed to Abdul
The matter is not relevant to the issue of breach of duty
Which of the following is not taken into account by the courts when deciding whether a duty of care is breached?
Forseeability of risk
Reasonableness of the claimant
Practicability and expense of taking precautions
Seriousness of harm
Which of the following has not been expressed to be an aim of the law of tort?
To compensate victims
To impose duties of conduct on individuals
To limit court action
Nathan was playing football for Rush Rovers, his local team, when, following a bad tackle by Gerard, of the opposing team, his ankle was broken. Nathan decides to sue Gerard for his injuries. What defence might Gerard raise in court?
Volenti non fit injuria (consent)
Illegality
Contributory negligence
Res ipsa loquitur
Where the partial defence of contributory negligence is raised, which of the following need to establish by the defendant?
The claimant was negligent
The claimant contributed to his injuries
The claimant contributed to his injuries through his own negligence
The claimant consented to his injuries
If a claimant is a bystander at an accident and he is to succeed in a claim for negligence for suffering nervous shock, which of the following conditions of liability is not required to be established?
The damage suffered amounts to a recognisable medical condition
There is a close relationship of love and affection between the victim and the claimant
The claimant perceived the injury with his own senses
The victim suffered serious harm
Which of the following is not required to be present for a duty of care to be created for negligent misstatement?
There is a close relationship of proximity
Injury must be reasonably foreseeable
It is ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose a duty of care
The defendant is acting in the course of business
The authority of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991) laid down the criteria for the imposition of a duty of care in cases involving nervous shock. Which of the following is not required?
The injury must be a recognised psychiatric illness
There must be a close tie of love and affection between the claimant and the person who suffered harm
There must be proximity between the claimant and the incident
The incident must have taken place in a public area