Deck 6: Carelessly Causing Harm

Question 1

In deciding whether the salient features of the case are consistent with the existence of a duty of care, will the court take into account (i) the need for coherency in the law, (ii) the possibility of conflicting duties of care, (iii) the possibility of indeterminate liability, or (iv) the need for people to take responsibility for each other's actions?

A)i, ii, iii.
B)i, iii, iv.
C)ii, iii, iv.
D)i, ii, iii, iv.

Answer 1

A

Question 2

Which of the following is not a situation where a plaintiff will be able to recover compensation for pure economic loss suffered as a result of a defendant's carelessness?

A)Where the defendant has carelessly caused harm to the person or property of a third party and this has caused financial harm to the plaintiff.
B)Where the plaintiff has suffered financial loss as a result of the defendant's defective product.
C)Where the plaintiff has suffered financial harm as a result of the defendant's negligent advice.
D)Where a defendant gives advice to a plaintiff and the plaintiff suffers a loss as a result of relying on that advice even where the advice was of a trivial nature and the defendant did not know that the plaintiff intended to rely on it.

Answer 2

D

Question 3

The 'neighbour principle' formulated in the decision of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 provides:

A)one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that are reasonably foreseeable to likely injure any person one would reasonably have foreseen would be so injured.
B)a decomposed snail might reasonably be expected to enhance the flavour of ginger beer.
C)manufacturers will not generally be liable to consumers for defects in their products because there is no contract between the manufacturer and the consumer.
D)every person has a non-delegable duty not to cause harm to their next-door neighbour.

Answer 3

A

Question 4

In relation to the tort of negligence it is well established that:

A)a tenant owes a duty of care to their landlord.
B)a doctor owes a duty of care to their patient.
C)a client owes a duty of care to their lawyer.
D)a student owes a duty of care to their teacher.

Question 5

According to the 'eggshell skull' rule:

A)if a plaintiff suffers less than usual harm because of particular fortitude, the defendant will be liable for the full extent of the harm regardless of whether the type of harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence.
B)if the plaintiff suffers greater than usual harm because of a pre-existing vulnerability, the defendant will be liable for the harm provided it was of a type that was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.
C)a defendant is responsible for all harm caused by their breach of duty of care.
D)a defendant is only responsible for harm caused by their breach that was reasonably foreseeable and not too remote or far-fetched.

Question 6

Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff is for:

A)the judge to decide.
B)the jury to decide.
C)both the judge and jury to decide.
D)the lawyers to decide.

Question 7

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

A)The duty owed is not just to take reasonable care but to ensure that all reasonable care is taken.
B)The duty cannot be delegated to another person.
C)The duty is owed by employers to their employees.
D)The duty extends to intentional harmful acts by others.

Question 8

In an action in negligence, once the plaintiff has established that the defendant has breached their duty of care, the plaintiff has to prove:

A)that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
B)that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances.
C)that the defendant's conduct was reasonably foreseeable and the risk was not insignificant.
D)that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to avoid the harm in the circumstances.

Question 9

Which of the following statements is not true of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk?

A)It is sometimes referred to by its Latin name volenti non fit injuria.
B)The defendant will be relieved of all liability if it can be proved that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of harm.
C)To succeed the defendant must prove that the plaintiff had full knowledge and appreciation of the risk.
D)The defendant need not show that the plaintiff freely and willingly agreed to the precise risk that eventuated.

Question 10

A person who has carelessly caused harm to another may have committed the tort of:

A)negligence.
B)intimidation.
C)defamation.
D)deceit.

Question 11

To establish the existence of a duty of care the plaintiff must prove that at the time of the incident:

A)it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable.
B)it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable.
C)it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct could cause harm to someone in the plaintiff's position.
D)the defendant knew or ought to have known that the plaintiff was in a vulnerable position.

Question 12

Which of the following scenarios is not an example of a bailment?

A)Renting a DVD from a video shop.
B)Leaving clothes with a dry cleaner.
C)Selling a car to a car yard.
D)Borrowing a neighbour's lawnmower.

Question 13

Under the civil liability legislation in some States, contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff can result in:

A)the plaintiff being held completely liable for their own loss.
B)damages being payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.
C)the plaintiff contributing to the legal costs incurred by the defendant.
D)a mistrial.

Question 14

The High Court decided in the decision of Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510 that:

A)the standard of care owed by an unlicensed driver to a passenger is a lower standard of care.
B)the standard of care owed by an inexperienced driver to a passenger is a lower standard of care.
C)the standard of care owed by an unlicensed driver to their supervisor is a lower standard of care.
D)the standard of care owed by an unlicensed or inexperienced driver to others is the same objective standard as that owed by a licensed driver.

Question 15

In an action in negligence, if the defendant can establish that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of harm, the defendant:

A)is completely relieved of liability.
B)is partially relieved of liability.
C)can counterclaim from the plaintiff for damages.
D)can later commence civil proceedings against the plaintiff.

Question 16

Which of the following is not an element required to be established to prove the tort of negligence?

A)The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
B)The defendant intended to harm the plaintiff.
C)The defendant breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
D)The defendant's breach of the duty of care caused the plaintiff to suffer harm.

Question 17

When a person fails to exercise reasonable care and causes harm to another person to whom they owe a duty of care, they may have committed the tort of:

A)private nuisance.
B)negligence.
C)public nuisance.
D)assault.

Question 18

In an action in negligence, in deciding whether a breach of duty caused a particular harm, the judge must be satisfied:

A)that there was no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.
B)that there was factual causation and that the scope of liability extends to the particular harm.
C)that the plaintiff did not voluntarily assume the risk.
D)that the harm suffered was not insignificant.

Question 19

The plaintiff can establish that the defendant has breached their duty of care by proving:

A)that but for the defendant's conduct the plaintiff would not have suffered the damage that the plaintiff had to suffer.
B)that the risk of harm was foreseeable and significant, and the defendant failed to do what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.
C)that the risk of harm to the plaintiff was significant, and the defendant did nothing to avoid the harm.
D)that the risk of harm to the plaintiff was foreseeable and the defendant did nothing to avoid the harm.

Question 20

In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must first prove:

A)the defendant did not take reasonable steps to avoid the harm.
B)the plaintiff did not owe the defendant a duty of care.
C)the defendant has taken an unreasonable risk.
D)the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.

Question 21

A careless act by a person that causes harm to another person to whom a duty of care is owed is most likely to be the tort of:

A)trespass to person.
B)battery.
C)assault.
D)negligence.

Question 22

Contributory negligence:

A)will result in the plaintiff being liable to pay a contribution to the defendant.
B)is usually only a partial defence.
C)must be established in order for the plaintiff to succeed.
D)relieves the defendant of all liability.

Question 23

An 'occupier' of premises is the person who:

A)visits the premises.
B)owns the premises.
C)lives at the premises.
D)controls the premises.

Question 24

What is the legal term applied to when a person is in temporary possession of goods belonging to another?

A)Vicarious liability
B)Bailment
C)Negligent misstatement
D)Occupier's liability

Question 25

In an action for negligence, if contributory negligence is established:

A)liability will be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant.
B)the trial is adjourned.
C)the defendant does not have to pay compensation.
D)the plaintiff must pay compensation to the defendant.

Question 26

A defendant will only owe the plaintiff a duty of care if loss, damage or injury to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's conduct was:

A)sufficiently foreseeable.
B)legally foreseeable.
C)reasonably foreseeable.
D)adequately foreseeable.

Question 27

In order to establish that a person giving advice owed a duty of care, the plaintiff does not have to prove:

A)the advice caused harm to the person or property of the plaintiff.
B)the advice was of a business or serious nature.
C)the person giving advice knew or should have known that the plaintiff intended to rely on the advice.
D)it was reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to rely on the advice.

Question 28

At common law, the defendant is said to have breached their duty of care if:

A)they failed to do what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.
B)it is reasonably foreseeable that their conduct could cause harm to the plaintiff.
C)the damage suffered by the plaintiff, due to defendant's conduct, was reasonably foreseeable.
D)the defendant's conduct caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Question 29

In the tort of negligence, if the defendant can establish volenti non fit injuria:

A)the defendant is relieved of all liability.
B)the plaintiff has involuntarily assumed the risk of harm.
C)the defendant is entitled to compensation from the plaintiff.
D)liability is apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Question 30

In relation to the tort of negligence it is well established that:

A)a tenant owes a duty of care to their landlord.
B)a patient owes a duty of care to their doctor.
C)a lawyer owes a duty of care to their client.
D)a person who uses a product owes a duty of care to the manufacturer.

Question 31

In the tort of negligence, the 'eggshell skull' rule is the rule that:

A)the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff even if the plaintiff suffers greater harm than they otherwise would have due to a pre-existing vulnerable condition.
B)the defendant is not liable for the full extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff if the plaintiff suffers greater harm than they otherwise would have due to a pre-existing vulnerable condition.
C)the defendant's liability for the harm suffered by the plaintiff is apportioned between the plaintiff and defendant according to the extent the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerable condition resulted in greater harm than they otherwise would have suffered.
D)the defendant is not liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff because of a pre-existing vulnerable condition.

Question 32

The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) states that an occupier of premises is not liable for injury to a visitor to the premises if the visitor:

A)is injured while in the process of committing an indictable offence.
B)is injured while in the process of committing a criminal offence.
C)is injured while trespassing.
D)is injured while leaving the premises.

Question 33

An occupier of premises is only liable for an injury to a visitor to the premises if: (i) They were in control of the premises at the time.(ii) They had in fact been careless in not ensuring the premises are safe.(iii) They directly caused the injury.(iv) The visitor was on the premises with the express permission of the occupier:

A)i and iii.
B)i and ii.
C)ii and iii.
D)iii and iv.

Question 34

Which of the following principles do the court not need to take into account when deciding whether or not a public or other authority has a duty or has breached a duty of care?

A)Whether the functions required to be exercised by the authority are limited by the financial and other resources that are reasonably available to the authority for the purpose of exercising the functions.
B)Whether the general allocation of financial or other resources by the authority is not open to challenge.
C)Whether the functions required to be exercised by the authority are to be decided by reference to the broad range of its activities (not merely by reference to the matter to which the proceeding relates.).
D)Whether the authority has a history of previous liability for negligence.

Question 35

The law of negligence is now a combination of case law and statutory rules as a result of law reform prompted by the:

A)financial crisis.
B)economic crisis.
C)insurance crisis.
D)negligence crisis.

Question 36

In establishing negligence, even if the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care and has breached it, the defendant will not be liable unless the damage suffered by the plaintiff:

A)was caused by the defendant's breach.
B)was too remote or far-fetched.
C)was voluntarily assumed by the defendant.
D)was pure economic loss.

Question 37

Which of the following elements need not be satisfied before a defendant giving advice will owe a duty of care to a plaintiff who is a third party?

A)The defendant knew or should have known that the information or advice would be communicated by the client to the plaintiff.
B)The information or advice was likely to lead the plaintiff to enter into a transaction of the kind the plaintiff in fact entered into.
C)The information or advice was provided at a time when the plaintiff was most vulnerable.
D)It was likely that the plaintiff would suffer economic loss if the information or advice was wrong.

Question 38

Manufacturer's liability for defective products is governed by both the principles of tort law and which of the following statutory regimes?

A)Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
B)Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic)
C)Australian Consumer Law
D)Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

Question 39

A situation where a plaintiff will be able to recover compensation for pure economic loss suffered as a result of the defendant's carelessness is:

A)where the defendant has unintentionally caused harm to the person or property of a third party and this has caused mental harm to the plaintiff.
B)where the plaintiff has suffered financial harm as a result of the defendant's defective products.
C)where the plaintiff has gained financially as a result of the defendant's advice.
D)where a defendant gives advice to a plaintiff and the plaintiff suffers a loss as a result of relying on that advice even where the advice was of a trivial nature and the defendant did not know that the plaintiff intended to rely on it.

Question 40

When a defendant's negligence does not cause any physical harm to the plaintiff or their property, but the plaintiff suffers financial loss as a result of the defendant's carelessness, this is known as:

A)vicarious liability.
B)negligent misstatement.
C)pure economic loss.
D)factual causation.