Search Header Logo

LA2020 Workshop 2

Authored by Barry Yau

Social Studies

University

Used 3+ times

LA2020 Workshop 2
AI

AI Actions

Add similar questions

Adjust reading levels

Convert to real-world scenario

Translate activity

More...

    Content View

    Student View

6 questions

Show all answers

1.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

45 sec • 1 pt

The concept of reasonable foreseeability plays a role in:

two of the three elements of the tort of negligence.

all of the three elements of the tort of negligence.

one of the three elements of the tort of negligence

none of the three elements of the tort of negligence

2.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

45 sec • 1 pt

The plaintiff must show that it was reasonably foreseeable that a class of persons (which the plaintiff belonged):

would suffer a consequence that the defendant should have been aware of

would suffer a consequence of the defendant's action.

would suffer a consequence of the same general character as that which actually eventuated.

3.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

45 sec • 1 pt

Under the duty of care, reasonable foreseeability is a prospective test.

This means that the subjective person is placed in the shoes of the plaintiff just before the alleged act of negligence.

This means that the objective person is placed in the shoes of the plaintiff just before the alleged act of negligence.

This means that the subjective person is placed in the shoes of the defendant just before the alleged act of negligence.

This means that the objective person is placed in the shoes of the defendant just before the alleged act of negligence.

4.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

45 sec • 1 pt

In Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, Brennan J stated it is preferable that the law should develop novel categories of negligence

:

if the established category is similar to the novel category.

incrementally and by analogy with established categories.

by analogy with established categories.

5.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

30 sec • 1 pt

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 held:

The Caparo test is part of Queensland law.

The Caparo test is still part of Australian law.

The Caparo test is no longer part of Australian law.

6.

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

45 sec • 1 pt

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 held:

There is no unifying principle giving rise to a duty of care in novel situations.

There are a defined set of principles giving rise to a duty of care in novel situations.

Access all questions and much more by creating a free account

Create resources

Host any resource

Get auto-graded reports

Google

Continue with Google

Email

Continue with Email

Classlink

Continue with Classlink

Clever

Continue with Clever

or continue with

Microsoft

Microsoft

Apple

Apple

Others

Others

Already have an account?