Deck 6: Applications of Negligence to Business

Question 1

The decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 68 ALR 331 was based on the fact that:

A) The landlord of the premises allowed a dangerous substance to escape and damage another's property.
B) The landlord of the premises employed a contractor enter and carry out a dangerous activity.
C) The tenant employed a contractor who was negligent.
D) The landlord failed to have premises properly inspected.

Answer 1

B

Question 2

Who is the 'occupier' of premises?

A) The person who has occupation or control of the premises.
B) The person who owns the premises.
C) The person who has entire control over the premises.
D) The person in possession of the premises.

Answer 2

A

Question 3

To establish a case of occupier's liability, a plaintiff must establish that:

A) The hazard was in the nature of a 'trap' and not obvious.
B) The defendant was negligent in not putting some protection in place or giving a warning.
C) The defendant has occupation or control of the land or structure.
D) All of the above.

Answer 3

D

Question 4

Occupiers never owe a trespasser a duty of care.

Question 5

A 'non-delegable' duty of care is:

A) Less onerous than an ordinary duty of care.
B) As onerous as an ordinary duty of care.
C) An absolute duty to take reasonable care.
D) More onerous than an ordinary duty of care.

Question 6

Which of the following is NOT a factor a court must take into account in deciding whether a public authority has breached its duty of care?

A) Evidence of compliance with general procedures.
B) The financial and other resources reasonably available to the authority.
C) The broad range of the authority's activities.
D) Whether they are in occupation or control of the premises.

Question 7

In which case did the House of Lords first suggest that a negligent misstatement could give rise to an action for financial loss?

A) Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
B) L Shaddock & Associates v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225.
C) Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465.
D) Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 71 ALJR 448.

Question 8

Under common law, an occupier owes a duty of care to all people coming onto their premises, including trespassers. Why do you think the courts extended this duty of care to trespassers? Do you think that the courts' approach was justified?

Question 9

It is easier to take action against a manufacturer of a defective product under consumer protection legislation than under the common law because:

A) It is quicker and cheaper.
B) There is no need to prove fault.
C) Statute law takes precedence over the common law.
D) The manufacturer is strictly liable.

Question 10

In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85, the manufacturer:

A) Was liable to the customer under the product liability law.
B) Was not liable to the customer for breach of an implied term in the contract.
C) Was not liable because the customer had the opportunity to inspect the product.
D) Was liable for breach of duty of care owed to the customer.

Question 11

Following the decision in Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 71 ALJR 448, to whom does an auditor owe a duty of care?

A) Anyone who reads the report.
B) Only to the company who commissioned the report.
C) Anyone who they know will rely on the report.
D) Anyone who buys shares in the audited company.

Question 12

What is a non-delegable duty of care?

Question 13

What is occupier's liability?

Question 14

Which of the following statements about product liability is NOT correct?

A) Sellers and repairers are under similar duties to manufacturers and distributors.
B) Where there is a possibility for an intermediate inspection of the goods and the inspection is done negligently, the intermediary may be liable.
C) A distributor of a product which is dangerous per se owes a duty to give adequate warning to take precautions.
D) A manufacturer will only be liable under the Australian Consumer Law if they are shown to have been negligent.

Question 15

A person who suffers injury as a result of a defective product may take action in negligence or under consumer protection legislation.

Question 16

For an occupier, where the risk is obvious, the duty is minimal.

Question 17

In which case did the High Court decide that a duty of care could arise in relation to both the giving of information and the giving of advice?

A) Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 71 ALJR 448.
B) L Shaddock & Associates v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225.
C) Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
D) Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465.

Question 18

In order to succeed in an action against an occupier, the plaintiff does not have to establish that the defendant has occupation as long as ownership can be established.

Question 19

The decision in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986) 162 CLR 479 means that:

A) Occupiers of property owe a duty of care to anyone who enters their premises.
B) The duty of an occupier varies with the circumstances of a person's entry.
C) An occupier's duty of care is measured by their response to a foreseeable risk.
D) All of the above.

Question 20

An action for harm caused by a defective product under the Australian Consumer Law requires proof of fault.

Question 21

A driver of a vehicle registered in the Northern Territory, who is injured in NSW can be compensated without proof of fault.

Question 22

A prosecution for criminal negligence means a civil action cannot be taken.

Question 23

Under the civil liability acts, the definition of 'Community work' excludes work done for:

A) Tourism.
B) Financial gain.
C) Sport and Recreation.
D) Amusement.

Question 24

In what circumstances will an employer be vicariously liable for the negligent act of an employee?

A) Always.
B) Only if the employee is an independent contractor.
C) Never.
D) Only if the negligent act was carried out in the course of their employment.

Question 25

In what circumstances will a person giving negligent advice be liable for harm arising from their negligence?

A) Where one person gives advice to another.
B) Where the advice is given in serious circumstances to a person who the advisor knew would reasonably rely upon it.
C) Where the person is a professional advisor.
D) Where the advice is given in relation to commercial business activities.

Question 26

An employer will be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of:

A) Employees but not independent contractors.
B) Both employees and independent contractors.
C) Independent contractors but not employees.
D) Neither employees nor independent contractors.

Question 27

What is meant by the term 'vicarious liability'?

Question 28

Pure economic loss means there is no physical damage or injury.

Question 29

Do you think it appropriate that volunteers and 'Good Samaritans' be protected from the consequences of their carelessness? Explain your answer.

Question 30

In Deatons v Flew (1949) 79 CLR 370, why was the hotelier NOT liable to the injured customer?

A) Because the barmaid lost her temper.
B) Because the injured customer had provoked the barmaid and was contributorily negligent.
C) Because the barmaid's actions were outside the scope of her employment.
D) Because the barmaid was not an employee.

Question 31

An auditor will never under any circumstances owe a duty of care to a third party.

Question 32

Vicarious liability can make a person liable for the wrongful acts of another if certain criteria are satisfied.

Question 33

Under the civil liability acts, a 'Good Samaritan' will still be liable for an act done:

A) In assisting a person who has not been injured but who is at risk of being injured.
B) While the Good Samaritan is intoxicated.
C) In giving advice about the assistance of a person who has not been injured but who is at risk of being injured.
D) Honestly and without recklessness.

Question 34

Liability for criminal negligence might arise because:

A) The accused failed to exercise reasonable care and this caused death or injury to a member of the community.
B) There was a very serious departure from reasonable standards of care.
C) The accused was reckless in the face of it being reasonably foreseeable that the injured person would suffer serious harm.
D) All of the above.