Torts 1 duty of care& breach

Which of the following best describes "proximity" in the context of duty of care?

• The existence of a physical contract between the claimant and defendant

• A close relationship between the parties in terms of time, space, or relationship

• Whether harm is foreseeable to a "reasonable person"

• The mental state of the defendant at the time of the incident

Which of the following scenarios is most likely to establish a duty of care?

• A passerby watching a house fire and failing to help

• A doctor giving professional advice during an emergency

• A manufacturer selling a defective product that harms a consumer

• A stranger suffering mental harm from witnessing a car accident

Which of the following best describes the "reasonable foreseeability" aspect of duty of care?

• Whether harm to the claimant was likely, given the defendant’s actions

• Whether the defendant could imagine any potential harm

• Whether harm was directly caused by an intentional act

• Whether the harm could have been prevented with professional training

In the context of duty of care, the term "fair, just, and reasonable" is used to:

• Determine if damages should be awarded

• Limit the scope of duty to avoid overly broad liability

• Assess the specific amount of compensation owed

• Establish the proximity between parties

In Bourhill v Young, which principle was highlighted regarding the duty of care in negligence cases?

• That there must be a foreseeable physical impact

• That mental distress alone cannot be compensated

• That economic loss is always recoverable

• That claimants must be within the range of foreseeable harm

The "reasonable person" standard in negligence law is based on:

• How the average individual would act in similar circumstances

• How an expert would act in a professional setting

• How the defendant personally thought they were acting

• The subjective viewpoint of each party involved

Which of the following best describes a breach of duty of care in negligence?

• When the defendant intentionally harms the claimant

• When the defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person
  

• When the claimant experiences any type of harm

• When the claimant and defendant have a contractual relationship

In negligence cases, which of the following would most likely indicate a breach of duty?

• The claimant failing to prove that harm occurred

• The defendant making a reasonable attempt to prevent harm

• The defendant accidentally causing minor harm

• The defendant taking no precautions despite high risk of harm

In Paris v Stepney Borough Council, the court found that the defendant breached its duty of care because:

• The defendant’s actions directly harmed a group of people

• The claimant had a known vulnerability, which made the risk of harm greater

• The defendant provided adequate safety equipment

• The claimant assumed the risk of injury

In Latimer v AEC Ltd, the court ruled that the defendant did not breach its duty of care because:

• The defendant had taken reasonable precautions to prevent harm

• The harm was unforeseeable to a reasonable person

• The defendant was not in a position of authority over the claimant

• The claimant was responsible for their own injury