WK11 Quiz

Which of the following is a question of fact?

• Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?

• What is the standard of care owed to the plaintiff?

• Did the defendant breach their duty of care?

• Was the harm suffered by the plaintiff reasonably foreseeable?

In deciding whether or not the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, which of the following is not a salient feature of the case?

• The need for people to take personal responsibility.

• The relative vulnerability of the defendant.

• The control the plaintiff has over the situation.

• The type of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Which of the following is not a non-delegable duty of care?

• The duty owed by a school to its students.

• The duty owed by a hospital to its patients.

• The duty owed by an occupier to visitors.

• The duty owed by an employer to their employees.

In deciding if a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court need not consider:

• the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

• if the defendant has complied with standard practice within the industry.

• the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken.

• the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm.

A defendant is not liable for every consequence of their carelessness, only for those consequences that are:

• reasonably foreseeable.

• too remote or far-fetched.

• intended by the defendant.

• none of the above.

If it is established that the defendant in a negligence action has subsequently apologised:

• they are relieved from all liability.

• they are partially relieved from liability.

• they are deemed to have admitted fault.

• none of the above.

Where there is an obvious danger on public property, the local authority:

• does not owe a duty of care.

• owes a duty of care to warn persons using the area as intended by the public authority.

• owes a duty of care to remove the obvious danger.

• is entitled to assume that most entrants will take reasonable care for their own safety.

A person giving advice can be liable not only to a person they directly advise but also to third parties. Which of the following is not a requirement to establish liability in this situation?

• The information or advice was likely to lead the plaintiff to enter into a transaction of the kind the plaintiff entered into.

• The defendant knew or should have known that the information or advice would be communicated by their client to the plaintiff.

• The defendant had communicated with the third party in relation to the advice.

• It was likely that the plaintiff would suffer economic loss if the information or advice was wrong.

Which of the following best describes what occurred in the case of Bolton v Stone?

• In Bolton v Stone, a cricket club was held liable for an injury from a flying cricket ball because it was reasonably likely that a ball would leave the ground and that someone would be injured.

• The main principle in the case of Bolton v Stone is that for a defendant to have caused the injury, the injury needs to be within the reasonable scope of liability of the defendant.

• In Bolton v Stone, a plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, but this was not a breach of duty of care because there was a low probability of the risk occurring and a high burden of taking precautions.

• In Bolton v Stone, a plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, but this was not a breach of duty of care because there was a high probability of the risk occurring and a low burden of taking precautions.

Which of the following best describes the defence of contributory negligence?

• Contributory negligence refers to an act of negligence committed by the defendant and must be claimed with an action for voluntary assumption of risk.

• If a plaintiff has contributed to his or her loss, damage or injury, the damages awarded under negligence may be reduced proportionately to the negligent actions of that plaintiff.

• Contributory negligence has now been abolished by the new Civil Liability legislation; a defendant can no longer avoid liability for negligence by bringing evidence of the negligence of the plaintiff.

• If a plaintiff contributes 50% or more to the loss or damage they suffer, the defendant will not be liable for that loss or damage.