Deck 4: Civil Liability: the Law of Torts and Negligence

Question 1

Which of the following is a feature that distinguishes tort law from contract law?

A)Tort law is concerned with having the promises of others performed.
B)Tort law is private law,contract law is public law.
C)In tort law,the duties which arise are mainly imposed by law.
D)In tort law,the duties are mainly imposed by the agreement between the parties.

Answer 1

C

Question 2

The modern law of negligence was established by the Review of the Law of Negligence Report.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

In the law of tort what is the required standard of proof and who must prove it?

A)The plaintiff must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
B)The Crown must prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
C)The plaintiff must prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
D)The Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Answer 3

C

Question 4

Much of the law of torts is concerned with accidental injury to the person or property.Do you think that it is appropriate for a person to be made liable for an accidental act?

Question 5

Changes to the law of negligence made in 2002 in all jurisdictions were designed to restrict the right of a plaintiff to recover damages.

Question 6

The test for duty of care is based on which of the following elements:

A)policy considerations.
B)vulnerability and reliance.
C)foreseeability of harm.
D)all of the above.

Question 7

A tort involves the breach of a civil law instead of a criminal law.

Question 8

Which of the following is NOT an element of an action for negligence?

A)The defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care.
B)The plaintiff's intentional breach of the duty of care.
C)The plaintiff has suffered a loss.
D)The defendant breached their duty of care.

Question 9

Which of the following is NOT an accurate statement about the difference between tort law and criminal law?

A)An action in tort is taken by the victim,criminal action is taken by the state.
B)Tort law is private,criminal law is public law.
C)Tort law is a state matter,criminal law is a federal matter.
D)Tort law compensates,criminal law punishes.

Question 10

In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562,why did Donoghue sue Stevenson in negligence and not contract?

A)The contract between Stevenson and Donoghue expressly excluded liability.
B)There was no contract between Donoghue and Stevenson.
C)The law of contract cannot be used to recover compensation for personal injury.
D)The contract was between Donoghue and the retailer.

Question 11

An action in tort may become 'statute barred' if more than 3 or 6 years (in some cases even less)have passed (depending upon the type of tort)since the date the tort was committed or the damage incurred.Why does the law impose these time limits? Do you think they are fair?

Question 12

The purpose of the law of tort is to shift the loss from the injured party to the wrongdoer.

Question 13

The function of the law of tort is to determine when a remedy will be available to a plaintiff.

Question 14

As an alternative to bringing an action in tort,a victim may choose to seek compensation by way of:

A)a criminal injuries compensation scheme.
B)a workers' compensation scheme.
C)a motor accident compensation scheme.
D)any of the above.

Question 15

Define a tort.

Question 16

When will a negligence action arising in July 2014 become statute barred in Tasmania?

A)July 2017.
B)July 2016.
C)July 2019.
D)July 2015.

Question 17

The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that their action is within the limitation period.

Question 18

Describe the difference between tort law and contract law.

Question 19

In a negligence case,the harm suffered by the plaintiff must be:

A)the foreseeable consequence of an action.
B)the result of a careless act.
C)a serious physical injury.
D)all of the above.

Question 20

A tort is best described by which of the following:

A)an infringement of the interests of a person which entitles them to compensation.
B)a right to sue another person for damages.
C)a civil wrong other than a claim for breach of contract.
D)all of the above.

Question 21

Which of the following questions is NOT asked in the test of factual causation?

A)Would the plaintiff have suffered damage but-for the defendant's negligence?
B)Is it appropriate for the scope of the liability to extent to the harm caused?
C)Did the defendant cause the harm?
D)Was the negligence a necessary condition of the harm?

Question 22

The reasonable person test,in the case of children,gives way to the standard of a child of similar age and experience.

Question 23

If a plaintiff has a pre-existing condition that makes their injuries worse:

A)the 'exceptional circumstances' test will apply.
B)damages will be reduced for contributory negligence.
C)the defendant is liable for any loss of the same kind that would be reasonably foreseeable.
D)the defendant is only liable if the particular damage is foreseeable.

Question 24

Describe what a Plaintiff must do in order to succeed in an action for negligence.

Question 25

If the defence of contributory negligence applies,civil liability legislation allows a court to reduce the amount of compensation by up to:

A)10%.
B)50%.
C)100%.
D)75%.

Question 26

The question of whether a duty of care is owed is a question of fact.

Question 27

A defendant will be found to have breached their duty of care if:

A)a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have taken precautions.
B)the risk of injury was foreseeable.
C)the risk of injury was significant.
D)all of the above.

Question 28

In order to establish contributory negligence the defendant must prove that:

A)the plaintiff was also at fault or negligent.
B)the damage was reasonably foreseeable and was contributed to by the plaintiff's action.
C)the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the damage or loss suffered by the plaintiff.
D)all of the above.

Question 29

The standard of care is a fixed and inflexible standard.

Question 30

What is the name of the test that the courts use in determining the existence of a duty of care in any given circumstance?

Question 31

A participant in a sport or recreational activity where there are known potential risks of serious injury has:

A)no duty to take reasonable care for their own safety.
B)a limited duty to take reasonable care for their own safety.
C)no duty of care to other participants.
D)a duty to take reasonable care for their own safety.

Question 32

Tort law defines the 'reasonable person' as:

A)the plaintiff.
B)the judge.
C)the defendant.
D)a person of normal intelligence.

Question 33

If the defence of voluntary assumption of risk applies:

A)a plaintiff can recover for an injury caused by an inherent risk but not an obvious risk.
B)a plaintiff cannot recover for injury caused by an obvious or an inherent risk.
C)a plaintiff can recover for injury caused by both an obvious risk and an inherent risk unless they were warned.
D)a plaintiff can recover for injury caused by an obvious risk but not an inherent risk.

Question 34

The test to determine the standard of care:

A)is a question of law for the judge.
B)is an objective test of the reasonable person.
C)will vary with the circumstances.
D)all of the above.

Question 35

In Strong v Woolworths [2012} HCA 5,the High Court found that:

A)the damage caused to the plaintiff was outside the scope of Woolworths' liability.
B)the failure of Woolworths to adopt a reasonable system of cleaning was the effective cause of the plaintiff's fall.
C)the plaintiff contributed to her injury by not looking where she was going.
D)the injury to the plaintiff was not caused by Woolworths' negligence.

Question 36

Which of the following is NOT a factor a court will take into account when assessing the relevant standard of duty?

A)The seriousness of the consequences if an injury occurs.
B)The probability of the risk of injury.
C)The level of remorse expressed by the defendant.
D)The opportunities for,and cost of,eliminating the risk.

Question 37

Who is the reasonable person and why is he/she so important in an action for negligence?

Question 38

The plaintiff in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 was unsuccessful because the court found that:

A)an adult would have recognised the risk but a child is judged by a lower standard.
B)a parent is not automatically liable for the torts of their children in the absence of special circumstances.
C)the defendant had not breached their duty of care by failing to provide protective gear which had not been designed or manufactured.
D)the risk of injury was so low that a reasonable person in the circumstances could disregard it.

Question 39

The case of Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40 is authority for the principle that:

A)parents are not automatically liable for the torts of their children.
B)a learner driver is subject to the standard of care of a child of similar age and experience.
C)a learner driver is subject to the standard of care of an unqualified an inexperienced driver.
D)a learner driver is subject to the same standard of care as any other driver.

Question 40

In Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)194 ALR 337,which of the following were held to be liable for breach of duty of care?

A)The respondent,Ryan.
B)The Great Lakes Council.
C)The Government of New South Wales.
D)None of the above.

Question 41

The recent statutory reforms to the law of negligence provide that,in the event of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff,the court can reduce the defendant's liability by 100%,thereby defeating the plaintiff's claim.Can you think of a situation where it would be appropriate to relieve a negligent defendant from liability entirely?

Question 42

A person cannot claim for injury as a result of something which was an obvious risk.

Question 43

The amount of damages a plaintiff can receive may be reduced by:

A)the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.
B)the defence of contributory negligence.
C)the provisions of the civil liability legislation.
D)all of the above.