Case Analysis and the Burden and Standard of Proof Flashcards
What are the four key elements of most civil claims?
a) Offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention
b) Duty, breach, causation, and loss
c) Foreseeability, remoteness, duty, and damages
d) Claim, defence, counterclaim, and appeal
b) Duty, breach, causation, and loss
Explanation: In most civil claims, particularly in negligence, the claimant must prove:
Duty – A legal obligation existed.
Breach – The duty was not met.
Causation – The breach caused the harm.
Loss – The claimant suffered damage as a result.
What is the burden of proof in civil litigation?
a) Beyond reasonable doubt
b) Clear and convincing evidence
c) Balance of probabilities
d) Preponderance of the evidence
c) Balance of probabilities
Explanation: In civil cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, meaning a fact must be more likely than not to have happened.
If a defendant argues that the claimant contributed to their own harm, who has the burden of proof?
a) The claimant
b) The defendant
c) The judge
d) Both parties equally
b) The defendant
Explanation: The burden of proving contributory negligence lies with the defendant since they are asserting the claim.
A claimant sues for personal injury after slipping on a supermarket floor. The store argues the floor was recently cleaned and warning signs were in place. What must the claimant prove?
a) That the store had a duty of care and breached it
b) That the store deliberately injured them
c) That they were not injured at all
d) That they have a valid insurance claim
a) That the store had a duty of care and breached it
Explanation:
The store owes a duty of care to customers.
The claimant must prove a breach (e.g., no warning signs, negligent cleaning).
If the store took reasonable precautions, it may not be liable.
In a contract dispute, the claimant alleges that the defendant failed to deliver goods on time. The defendant claims the delay was due to the claimant’s failure to provide necessary information. Who has the burden of proof?
a) The claimant must prove breach of contract
b) The defendant must prove non-performance was justified
c) Both must prove their arguments
d) The judge determines the facts without evidence
a) The claimant must prove breach of contract
Explanation:
The burden lies with the claimant to show:
A contract existed
The defendant failed to perform
If the defendant raises justification, they must provide evidence.
A pedestrian is injured after being hit by a delivery van. The van driver claims the pedestrian suddenly ran into the road. What legal principle might help the pedestrian prove negligence?
a) Contributory negligence
b) Res ipsa loquitur
c) Volenti non fit injuria
d) The postal rule
b) Res ipsa loquitur
Explanation:
Res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) applies when:
The defendant controlled the situation.
The accident would not normally occur without negligence.
The burden shifts to the defendant to disprove negligence.
In which scenario would a claimant NOT need to prove their claim?
a) The defendant admits liability
b) The claimant provides strong evidence
c) The judge allows the claim without trial
d) The defendant fails to file a defence
a) The defendant admits liability
Explanation: If a defendant admits liability, the burden of proof is no longer an issue—the case moves to assessing quantum (amount of damages).
A claimant sues for breach of contract, alleging they were promised exclusive rights to sell a product. The defendant argues there was no formal agreement. What is the key issue?
a) Whether the defendant’s refusal was fair
b) Whether an enforceable contract existed
c) Whether the claimant has money to sue
d) Whether damages can be recovered from a third party
b) Whether an enforceable contract existed
Explanation:
The existence of a contract is a fact in issue.
The claimant must prove that a legally binding agreement was made.
In a claim for defective goods, the claimant must prove:
a) That the goods did not meet the contractual terms
b) That the seller intentionally sold defective goods
c) That they lost a large sum of money
d) That the seller had no terms and conditions
a) That the goods did not meet the contractual terms
Explanation:
The key issue is whether the goods breached express or implied terms of the contract (e.g., Sale of Goods Act 1979).
Which of the following is NOT a factor in assessing causation?
a) Whether the breach directly led to the loss
b) Whether the loss was foreseeable
c) Whether the claimant had a valid insurance policy
d) Whether the claimant contributed to the loss
c) Whether the claimant had a valid insurance policy
Explanation:
Causation examines whether the breach caused the loss, not how the claimant recovers financially.
Insurance is irrelevant to determining liability.
