Class Test True and False Questions Flashcards
In ‘What is Tort Law For? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice’, John Gardner claims that one cannot explain what tort law is for without invoking corrective justice.
true
In ‘What is Tort Law For? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice’, John Gardner claims that the norm of tort law according to which (legally recognised) wrongdoers are required to pay reparative damages in respect of those (legally recognised) losses that they wrongfully occasion, on the ground that they wrongfully occasioned them, is a norm of corrective justice.
true
In ‘What is Tort Law For? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice’, John Gardner claims that tort law’s norm of corrective justice cannot be justified without relying on a counterpart moral norm of corrective justice which tort law’s norm of corrective justice helps to constitute.
true
In ‘What is Tort Law For? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice’, John Gardner claims that the counterpart moral norm of corrective justice is justified by what be labels the ‘continuity thesis’, the key idea of which is that, if one has breached a duty (or obligation) to do something, the reasons which justified that duty (unlike the duty itself) are not extinguished, but survive as reasons justifying a (secondary) duty to do the ‘next-best’ thing.
true
In the situation described below, A could be held liable to B for B’s loss if, in determining whether A acted with the required negligence, the relative approach were taken in respect of the harm-sufferer, but A could not be held liable to B for B’s loss if, in determining whether A acted with the required negligence, the abstract approach were taken in respect of the harm-sufferer:
A caused harm and resultant loss to B by performing certain conduct. A’s conduct was not negligent in relation to B, as it is not the case that a reasonable person in the position of A would have foreseen the reasonable possibility of the conduct causing harm to B and for that reason would not have performed it. However, A’s conduct was negligent in relation to a third party, T, as it is the case that a reasonable person in the position of A would have foreseen the reasonable possibility of the conduct causing harm to T and for that reason would not have performed it.
false
In the case of Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Afrika, Rumpff CJ expressed the view that, in respect of the harm-sufferer, the South African common law had adopted the relative approach.
false
In the case of Mkhatswa v Minister of Defence, the Supreme Court of Appeal seems to have endorsed, as part of the ratio of its decision, the view that, for the purpose of Aquilian liability, negligence is to be determined by taking, in respect of the harm-sufferer, a relative rather than an abstract approach.
true
In Bester v Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy, the Appellate Division seems to have accepted, as part of the ratio of its decision, that a person who negligently caused physical harm to a third party could be held liable towards a person who, as a result, suffered emotional shock only if the person who negligently caused the physical harm to the third party also was negligent in relation to the person who suffered the emotional shock
true
In Maimela v Makhado Municipality, the Supreme Court of Appeal accepted, as part of the ratio of the judgment, that a person who caused bodily harm to another could escape liability on the basis that he had acted with the harmed person’s consent.
false
In ‘The Trolley Problem’, Judith Jarvis Thomson claims that Philippa Foot in effect endorsed the following thesis: ‘Killing one is worse than letting five die.’
true
In ‘The Trolley Problem’, Judith Jarvis Thomson provides the reader with a hypothetical which she calls Bystander at the Switch and which, so she argues, presents ‘serious trouble’ for the thesis that ‘Killing one is worse than letting five die.’
true
In ‘The Trolley Problem’, Judith Jarvis Thomson provides the reader with a hypothetical which she calls Fat Man and she argues that, just as the bystander in Bystander at the Switch may throw the switch (in order to save the five) so you may push the fat man off the bridge in Fat Man (in order to save the five).
false
