Duty of Care Flashcards
What is the primary test for determining whether a duty of care exists in a novel situation?
A) The ‘but for’ test
B) The Caparo three-stage test
C) The Donoghue ‘neighbour principle’
D) The foreseeability test
B – The Caparo three-stage test
Explanation: The Caparo v Dickman (1990) test is used in novel situations. It assesses foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
Which of the following is NOT a stage in the Caparo v Dickman test?
A) Proximity
B) Foreseeability
C) Whether the defendant had insurance
D) Fair, just, and reasonable
C – Whether the defendant had insurance
Explanation: The three-stage test does not consider insurance, though insurance is a policy consideration when courts assess whether to impose a duty.
Which of the following cases established the ‘neighbour principle’?
A) Caparo v Dickman (1990)
B) Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
C) Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)
D) Nettleship v Weston (1971)
B – Donoghue v Stevenson
Explanation: Donoghue v Stevenson introduced the neighbour principle, which stated that a person owes a duty of care to those closely and directly affected by their actions.
James is a paramedic responding to an emergency call. En route, he negligently crashes into another car, injuring the driver. Does James owe a duty of care to the injured driver?
A) No, because emergency responders are immune from negligence claims
B) Yes, because all road users owe a duty of care to others
C) No, because public authorities are not liable in negligence
D) Yes, but only if James was acting recklessly
B – Yes, because all road users owe a duty of care to others
Explanation: According to Nettleship v Weston (1971), all road users owe a duty of care to other road users, regardless of occupation.
A hotel guest slips on an unmarked wet floor and suffers an injury. The hotel had recently cleaned the floor but failed to place a warning sign. Does the hotel owe a duty of care?
A) Yes, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
B) No, because slipping is a normal risk
C) No, because the guest should have been more careful
D) Yes, but only if the hotel intentionally caused the hazard
A – Yes, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Explanation: Occupiers owe a duty of care to visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, requiring them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
Which of the following is NOT a policy consideration when determining if a duty of care exists?
A) Floodgates argument
B) Financial position of the defendant
C) Deterrence
D) Defensive practices
B – Financial position of the defendant
Explanation: While insurance is a policy consideration, a defendant’s personal financial status is irrelevant in determining a duty of care.
In which case did the court hold that the police owe a duty of care to protect the public from foreseeable physical injury when carrying out an arrest?
A) Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)
B) Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
C) Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015)
D) Kent v Griffiths (2000)
B – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that police owe a duty of care to bystanders injured during an arrest, distinguishing it from Hill, where no duty was owed to potential future victims of a criminal.
Alex is walking past a construction site when a large unsecured metal beam falls and injures him. The company argues it had put up warning signs, but the beam fell due to an unexpected strong gust of wind. Does the construction company owe Alex a duty of care?
A) No, because the wind was unforeseeable
B) Yes, because occupiers owe a duty to the public under common law
C) No, because Alex was not an employee of the company
D) Yes, but only if Alex was invited onto the site
B – Yes, because occupiers owe a duty to the public under common law
Explanation: Employers and occupiers must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957). The risk of falling objects on a construction site is foreseeable, so a duty exists.
A doctor volunteers at a free clinic and negligently misdiagnoses a patient, leading to serious harm. The patient sues. Does the doctor owe a duty of care?
A) No, because the treatment was free
B) No, because there was no formal contract
C) Yes, because doctors assume responsibility for their patients
D) Yes, but only if the patient can prove gross negligence
C – Yes, because doctors assume responsibility for their patients
Explanation: In Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951), it was established that medical professionals owe a duty of care to their patients, even in voluntary settings.
A firework display company puts on a public show. A stray firework injures an audience member. The company argues it had taken extensive precautions. Does it owe a duty of care?
A) No, because the audience assumed the risk
B) Yes, because they owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm
C) No, because it was an accident
D) Yes, but only if negligence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
B – Yes, because they owed a duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm
Explanation: In Muir v Glasgow Corporation (1943), the standard of care is based on foreseeability. Given the inherent risks of fireworks, a duty exists.
