Intro True and False Questions

Question 1

For a person to be subjected to Aquilian liability in terms of the basic rule it is necessary but not sufficient , that he caused harm and loss to another.

Answer 1

True

Question 2

For a person to be subjected to aquilian liability in terms of the basic rule it is sufficient, but not necessary that he negligently or intentionally caused harm and loss to another.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

For a person to be subjected to Aquilian Liability ito the basic rule it is enough that he committed a legally recognized wrong against another by intentionally or negligently causing harm to her person or proeprty in breach of a legally recognized contractual duty owed to her not to do so

Answer 3

False

Question 4

A person can be subjected to AL ito the basic rule only if he committed a wrong against another by intentionally or negligently causing harm to her in breach of a legally recognized duty owed to her not to do so

Answer 4

True

Question 5

It is a necessary condition , for a person to be subjected to Aquilian Liability ito the basic rule in respect of loss suffered by another, that he caused that loss by committing a wrong against her and that the loss was not too remote

Answer 5

True

Question 6

It is a sufficient condition , for a person to be subjected to AL ito the basic rule in respect of loss suffered by another, that he caused the loss by committing a wrong against her and that loss was not too remote

Answer 6

False (necessary condition)

Question 7

A person can be subjected to AL ito the basic rule , in respect of loss suffered by another, only if he caused that loss by committing a wrong against her and the loss was not too remote

Answer 7

True

Question 8

Harm-causing conduct was negligent if and only if the harm causer (1) foresaw that it might cause harm to another and (2) for that reason should have refrained from performing it

Answer 8

false ( must reasonably foresee)

Question 9

It is a necessary condition for harm-causing conduct to have been negligent that a reasonable person in the position of the harm causer would have foreseen that it may cause harm to another.

Answer 9

true

Question 10

Harm causing conduct cannot have been negligent unless it is the case that a reasonable person in the position of the harm causer would have foreseen that it might cause harm to another

Answer 10

true

Question 11

Harm causing conduct was negligent if a reasonable person in the position of the harm causer would have foreseen that it might cause harm to another

Answer 11

False, (they must also for that reason have refrained from doing the conduct)

Question 12

The test for negligence is simply referred to as “the test in Kruger v Coetzee”

Answer 12

true

Question 13

According to the so called “but for “ test , event X was the cause of event Y IF AND ONLY IF , had event X not occurred, event Y would not have occurred

Answer 13

True

Question 14

According to the so called but for test, event X was not the cause of event Y if , even if event X had not occurred, event Y would still have occurred.

Answer 14

True

Question 15

According to the but for test it is both a necessary and sufficient condition, for event X to have been the cause of event Y , that the occurrence of event X was a necessary condition for the occurrence of event Y

Answer 15

True

Question 16

Remoteness used to be determined by the application of a direct consequences and foreseeability test, but these tests have been abandoned in favour of the so called flexible test which looks only at whether it would be fair just and reasonable and consistent with policy to hold the harm doer liable fo the loss that he caused

Answer 16

False ( the new test is supplementary and adds more criteria)

Question 17

It is prima facie wrongful to cause physical harm to another’s person or property by a negligent positive act

Answer 17

True

Question 18

It is prima facie lawful to cause physical harm to another’s person or property by a positive act which is intended to do so, unless the harm was caused with the harmed person’s consent or in self defence

Answer 18

False

Question 19

It is prima facie lawful for a person to cause physical harm to another person or property by a negligent omission.

Answer 19

True

Question 20

It is never wrongful for a person to cause physical harm to another’s person or property by a negligent omission

Answer 20

False

Question 21

In Ewels, the AD announced that negligent harm causing omissions could be declared wrongful only if one of the further facts previously identified by the law had been obtained

Answer 21

False ( can be more than one)

Question 22

For a person to have committed the kind of wrong which is required for him to be subjected to AL in terms of the basic rule, he has to have caused not only harm but also loss to another

Answer 22

False

Question 23

A person who physically injured another or damaged another’s property might have committed the kind of wrong which is required for him to be subjected to AL ito the basic rule even if the physical injury did not in turn result in medical expenses or a loss of income and even if the damaged property had no financial value

Answer 23

True

Question 24

Pure economic loss is caused to a person without causing physical harm to her person or property

Answer 24

True

Question 25

an example of PEL would be the loss that you suffer because I destroy your stock of frozen cray fish tails by interrupting the power supply to your cold store for three days by cutting through an electricity cable not belonging to you but to a local authority

Answer 25

False

Question 26

For the purposes of AL , conduct causing PEL is regarded as prima facie lawful not wrongful

Answer 26

True

Question 27

In Admin , Natal , the AD declared that while AL was possible where a person had caused another PEL by acting with intent, it was not possible where a person had done so unintentionally but negligently

Answer 27

False

Question 28

An employer can be held vicariously liable for a delict committed against another by his employee only if the employee committed the delict in question while acting within the “course and scope” of her employment

Answer 28

True

Question 29

For an employee’s delict to satisfy the course and scope condition, it is necessary that the delict was committed while the employee was discharging a duty imposed upon her by her employer and defining her employment

Answer 29

False

Question 30

For an employee’s delict to satisfy the course and scope condition, it is enough that the employee’s delict was sufficiently closely connected to his employment to justify the imposition of liability on his employer

Answer 30

true

Question 31

Where A negligently and wrongfully kills B, and C who is a dependant of B suffers loss as a result, A will be held liable to C for that loss only if A in addition acted negligently and wrongfully towards C

Answer 31

False

Question 32

Though having important features in common, AL and liability for pain and suffering are nonetheless distinct forms of liability, most crucially because loss is a necessary condition for the former but not the latter

Answer 32

true

Question 33

According to the RAF, the RAF will be liable for loss suffered by a person as a result of bodily injury sustained in a road traffic accident , regardless of whether the accident was caused by anyone’s fault

Answer 33

false

Question 34

According to S1(1) (a) of the Apportionment of Damages Act, a person who committed a wrong by negligently causing harm in breach of a duty not to do so can avoid liability for any loss which the victim of the wrong suffered as a result by showing that the harm caused was also caused by the victim’s negligence

Answer 34

false

Question 35

An effect of the supreme Court of Appeal judgment in Duivenboden was an expansion of Aquilian liability for negligent omission

Answer 35

False