Remoteness etc MCQs Flashcards
Larry, a model, suffers facial injuries as a result of falling from a theme park ride. The theme park had negligently failed to install appropriate safety measures. Larry is taken to hospital where a surgeon operates on his face. Larry has an allergic reaction to the anaesthetic and suffers additional nerve damage. Larry is unable to accept any modelling work for six months. Which of the following is most accurate in relation to remoteness?
Larry’s personal injury and consequential economic loss were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach but he has acted unreasonably so the losses will be too remote.
Larry’s consequential economic loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach but the personal injury was not.
Both Larry’s personal injury and the consequential economic loss were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach.
Larry’s personal injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach but the consequential economic loss was not.
Neither Larry’s personal injury nor the consequential economic loss were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach.
Both Larry’s personal injury and the consequential economic loss were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the breach.
Which of the following is correct in relation to step one of the legal test for necessity, that the defendant was acting in an emergency to prevent death or serious injury?
The test is objective; a reasonable person would have believed at the time of the negligence that it was necessary to act to prevent death or serious injury.
The test is subjective; that defendant must believe at the time of the negligence that it was necessary to act to prevent death or serious injury.
The test is objective; a reasonable person would have believed by the time of the trial that it was necessary to act to prevent death or serious injury.
The test is subjective; that defendant must believe by the time of the trial that it was necessary to act to prevent death or serious injury.
The test is subjective; that defendant must believe at the time of the negligence that it was necessary to act to prevent death or serious injury.
A captain of a ship negligently hits a large rock which damages the ship. As a result, to prevent the ship from sinking, the captain has to discharge some oil into the sea. The oil damages the claimant’s shoreline.
Which of the following is most accurate in relation to whether the captain can rely on the defence of necessity in a negligence claim brought by the claimant?
The defence of necessity will not succeed. The captain was not acting in an emergency when discharging the oil.
The defence of necessity will succeed. The captain was acting in an emergency when discharging the oil.
The defence of necessity will not succeed. The captain may have been acting in an emergency when discharging the oil, but this need to act arose out of the captain’s own negligence.
The defence of necessity will succeed. Whenever a defendant acts to save life, this will act as complete defence to any negligence claim.
The defence of necessity will not succeed. The captain may have been acting in an emergency when discharging the oil, but this need to act arose out of the captain’s own negligence.
n order to succeed with the defence of necessity, the defendant must prove that they:
Were acting in an emergency to prevent harm to the claimant, a third party and/or the defendant themselves; and
Were not at fault in causing the emergency.
Whilst the captain can satisfy step 1, they cannot satisfy step 2 – the captain’s acts caused the emergency.
A man broke his leg when he was negligently hit by a car. This injury would normally result in a two month absence from work. However, due to a pre-existing condition that he has, his leg does not fully recover and he is also left with a permanent limp.
Which of the following statements best describes what the man can claim from the negligent driver?
The man can claim for personal injury for the broken leg and consequential economic loss for his lost earnings from not being able to work for two months.
The man can claim for personal injury for the broken leg and permanent limp, together with consequential economic loss for his lost earnings from not being able to work for two months.
The man can claim for personal injury for the broken leg and permanent limp.
The man can claim for his lost earnings from not being able to work for two months.
The man can claim for personal injury for the broken leg.
The man can claim for personal injury for the broken leg and permanent limp, together with consequential economic loss for his lost earnings from not being able to work for two months.
Correct: This answer applies the principle that the tortfeasor must take the Claimant as they find them as set out in Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405. Consequently, the driver is liable in relation to both the broken leg and the permanent limp. It also correctly identifies the economic loss as consequential economic loss given that the loss (i.e. the loss of earnings) is as a result of a personal injury (i.e. the broken leg).
While the other answer options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect.
The explanation above should explain why the other options are incorrect, namely the other options do not allow recovery for all the losses suffered by the man.
A decorator negligently left an oil lamp burning in a woman’s house. The woman was unaware of the lamp and bumped into it by accident. The lamp fell and then exploded, causing the woman to suffer severe burns.
Which of the following statements best describes what the woman can claim from the decorator in negligence?
The woman can claim for minor burns as damage caused by a fire was reasonably foreseeable but not from an explosion.
The woman can claim for personal injury for the severe burns as damage caused by fire was reasonably foreseeable.
The woman cannot claim for anything as she can only claim for losses that are a direct result of the decorator’s breach.
The woman cannot claim for anything as burns from an explosion were not reasonably foreseeable.
The woman can claim for personal injury for the severe burns as this loss was a direct result of the decorator’s breach.
The woman can claim for personal injury for the severe burns as damage caused by fire was reasonably foreseeable.
Correct: This answer applies the principle that once it has been established that the kind of damage is reasonably foreseeable, there is no need for it to be reasonable for the Defendant to foresee the exact circumstances leading up to the damage, as set out in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837.
While the other options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect.
The explanation above should explain why the other options are incorrect, i.e. they do not apply the legal principle from Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Two of the options refer to ‘direct result’ of the breach. This is the historic test for remoteness which has been replaced with reasonable foreseeability (Wagon Mound No 1 [1961] AC 388).
A teenage boy is cycling on a narrow country road at a fast pace as he is training for a race. A woman is walking along the road with her dog, which is not on the lead. The dog barks furiously at the cyclist and jumps in front of the bicycle, causing the boy to fall and suffer a broken shoulder.
Which of the following represents the best advice to the woman in relation to defences to a negligence claim by the boy?
The defence of contributory negligence will apply as the boy’s actions have contributed to the harm he has suffered.
The defence of volenti will apply as the boy has chosen to run an obvious and serious risk of harm in cycling at a fast pace on a country lane.
There will be no defence available to the woman as the boy has done nothing wrong.
The defences of volenti and contributory negligence will apply as the obvious and serious risk of harm in cycling at a fast pace has contributed to the harm suffered by the boy.
The defence of contributory negligence will apply to negate any liability of the woman.
The defence of contributory negligence will apply as the boy’s actions have contributed to the harm he has suffered.
Correct. Contributory negligence would probably be argued successfully here as the facts appear to satisfy the two-stage test from Jones v Livox Quarries: (1) the boy has failed to take reasonable care for his own safety by cycling at a fast pace on a narrow country road, and (2) this has contributed, at least to some extent, to the injuries he has suffered. If the court were satisfied that this test was satisfied, they would have the power to reduce the boy’s damages by a ‘just and equitable’ amount: s.1 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
While the other options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect.
The given facts are unlikely to satisfy the four-stage test for volenti. Even if the boy has capacity to consent and is taken to have understood that there is a risk of accident when cycling fast on a narrow country road, he will not be found to have consented to the negligence of the woman in failing to control her dog on a public road, ie. the nature and extent of the risk has not been understood. Furthermore, although he has voluntarily run the risk of injury, the risk itself is unlikely to be regarded as such an obvious and serious risk as to satisfy the threshold set for implied agreement to harm: see Morris v Murray.
The speed at which the boy is cycling, given that this is a narrow country road, may be found to show a lack of reasonable care for his own safety, which has contributed to the harm he has suffered. It is not therefore correct to say that the boy has done nothing wrong.
The defence of contributory negligence is a partial defence which operates to reduce the level of damages payable by a defendant but does not negate liability.
A pedestrian is negligently knocked over by a cyclist who was travelling very fast. The pedestrian suffers a serious head injury and is in hospital for two weeks, during which time they cannot work, but they receive contractual sick pay from their employer. They die from their head injuries two weeks after the accident.
Which of the following statements is most accurate in relation to damages that the pedestrian’s estate might receive if successful in a claim for negligence against the cyclist?
The pedestrian’s estate is likely to be awarded compensatory damages, divided into special and general damages. The contractual sick pay will not be deducted from any special damages awarded. The general damages will include a PSLA award.
The pedestrian’s estate is likely to be awarded special damages only. The contractual sick pay will be deducted from any special damages awarded.
The pedestrian’s estate is likely to be awarded compensatory damages, divided into special and general damages. The contractual sick pay will be deducted from any special damages awarded. The general damages will include a PSLA award.
The pedestrian’s estate is likely to be awarded compensatory damages, divided into special and general damages. The contractual sick pay will not be deducted from any special damages awarded. The general damages will not include a PSLA award.
The pedestrian’s estate is likely to be awarded compensatory damages, divided into special and general damages. The contractual sick pay will be deducted from any special damages awarded. The general damages will not include a PSLA award.
a
The pedestrian’s estate is likely to be awarded compensatory damages, divided into special and general damages. The contractual sick pay will be deducted from any special damages awarded. The general damages will include a PSLA award.
Correct. Compensatory damages are by far the most common type of damages awarded in the tort of negligence. The aim of such damages is to put the claimant in the position they would have been in but for the defendant’s tortious act, as far as this is possible with an award of money. Even though the pedestrian has died, their estate may bring a claim for any losses suffered by the pedestrian as a result of the accident up to the date of death. This is calculated on the same basis as a normal personal injury award, but no claims can be made for any losses that might have arisen after the date of her death (s.1(2)(a) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934).
The pedestrian’s estate will therefore be entitled to special damages which cover specifically provabale and quantifiable financial losses, for example, loss of earnings. However, deductions will be made for any contractual sick pay the pedestrian received before they died. This is to avoid the claimant receiving two sums of money for the same reason.
The estate will also be entitled to general damages which will include a sum for the PSLA award (the pain, suffering and loss of amenity award). This award attempts to provide some financial compensation for the effect of the injury. The court would therefore assess the PSLA suffered by the pedestrian from the time of the accident until the date of death.
While the other options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect.
The explanation given above for why this answer is correct should explain why the other options are incorrect.
q
A professional golfer is being driven to a golf tournament by a friend. The golfer knows that their friend only passed their driving test one week ago and so is an inexperienced driver. On the way to the tournament the golfer and driver are in a car crash caused by the driver’s negligent driving. The golfer breaks their arm in the crash. As a result of this injury the golfer is unable to golf for several months.
Which one of the following correctly describes the forms of loss that the golfer would be able to claim for?
Pure economic loss.
Personal injury and property damage.
Personal injury only.
Personal injury and consequential economic loss.
Personal injury and pure economic loss.
Personal injury and consequential economic loss.
Correct. The golfer has suffered personal injury (a broken arm) and consequential economic loss (unable to play golf as a result if their injuries).
A contractor, working on the Council’s electricity cables, accidentally cuts through one of the cables. As a result, the electricity supply to a nearby bakery is cut off for 24 hours. The industrial oven in the bakery is no longer working. The batch of 100 cakes in the oven have failed to rise and are ruined. The ovens ordinarily produce 500 cakes per day. The bakery would like to sue the contractors in negligence.
Which of the following statements is the best advice to the bakery as to what losses are claimable?
The bakery will be able to recover the cost of the ruined batch of cakes in the oven but they will not recover for the lost profit from these cakes or the 400 additional cakes they would have made that day.
The bakery will be able to recover the cost of the ruined batch of cakes in the oven, the lost profit from those cakes and the profit from the additional 400 cakes they would have made that day.
The bakery will be able to recover the cost of the ruined batch of cakes in the oven and the profit from the additional 400 cakes they would have made that day but they will not recover for the loss of profit on the ruined cakes in the oven.
The bakery will be able to recover the cost of the ruined batch of cakes in the oven and the lost profit from selling that batch. They will not be able to recover the profit for the other 400 cakes they would have made that day.
The bakery will be able to recover the lost profit from the ruined batch of cakes in the oven and the other 400 cakes that would have been made that day but they will not recover the costs of the ruined batch of 100 cakes in the oven.
The bakery will be able to recover the cost of the ruined batch of cakes in the oven and the lost profit from selling that batch. They will not be able to recover the profit for the other 400 cakes they would have made that day.
This is correct. Pursuant to Spartan Steel v Martin, the bakery will be able to recover the cost of the batch of 100 cakes in the oven (property damage), the lost profits from that batch (consequential economic loss). They will not be able to recover for the lost profits on the 400 additional cakes they would have made that day but for the interruption to the electricity supply. This loss constitutes pure economic loss on the basis that the cables are not owned by the bakery and it is therefore not claimable in tort law.
At the gym one weekend, a wealthy individual who has enjoyed investing in the stock market for many years bumps into a friend who is a stockbroker. The stockbroker gives the wealthy individual the name of a company whose share price they are sure is about to rise sharply and suggests that the individual might like to invest in the company. The wealthy individual invests immediately but the company goes bankrupt the following week and they lose £50,000.
Which of the following is the best explanation of whether or not the wealthy individual may be able to successfully sue their friend for their negligent advice?
The wealthy individual may be unsuccessful because it was unreasonable for them to rely on the stockbroker’s advice as it was given for free.
The wealthy individual may be unsuccessful because it was unreasonable for them to rely on their friend’s advice; the wealthy individual was an experienced investor on the stock market.
The wealthy individual may be unsuccessful because it was unreasonable for them to rely on the stockbroker’s advice as it was given in an informal setting,
The wealthy individual may be successful because there is a special relationship between themselves and the stockbroker, as the stockbroker is their friend.
The wealthy individual may be successful because it was reasonable for them to rely on the stockbroker’s advice given the friend was a stockbroker.
The wealthy individual may be unsuccessful because it was unreasonable for them to rely on their friend’s advice; the wealthy individual was an experienced investor on the stock market.
Correct. For the stockbroker to owe the individual a duty of care the courts might consider the reasonable reliance test; Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) AC 465. The individual must have relied on the stockbroker’s advice, which they did. The stockbroker must have known that they would rely on their advice, which they did. However, it must have been reasonable for the individual to rely on the stockbroker’s advice, which it arguably was not, given their experience in investing in the stock market; Stevenson v Nationwide Building Society (1984) 272 EG 663.
Question 1
A solicitor acts for a client who is being sued in negligence. The solicitor’s instructions are
that the client was giving the claimant (the 8- year- old son of the client’s friend) a lift in
the client’s car when they had to carry out an emergency stop. The claimant was thrown forward and hit the back of the driver’s seat. The claimant suffered a broken collar bone
as a result. The client confirms that they did not ensure that the claimant was wearing a
seatbelt. They had presumed that either the claimant’s father had secured the claimant’s
seatbelt when they had sat the claimant in the car or that the claimant themselves had
fastened the seatbelt.
The solicitor has advised the client that it is likely that they will be held to have breached
the duty of care they owed to the claimant and that the breach caused the claimant’s injury.
The solicitor is considering the applicability of any available defence(s).
Which of the following statements best explains whether the client will be able to
successfully rely on an applicable defence?
A Yes, because the claimant’s father was clearly contributorily negligent and this can be
argued to reduce the level of compensation the client will have to pay the claimant.
B Yes, because the claimant was clearly contributorily negligent.
C Yes, because the claimant’s father consented to the risk of their son’s injury when they
sat the claimant in the client’s car without ensuring that the seatbelt was fastened.
D No, because the claimant’s age makes it highly improbable that the claimant would be
found to have been contributorily negligent.
E No, because, as the claimant’s father did not know of the risk of the client carrying out
an emergency stop, they could not be said to have consented to the risk.
Answer
Option D is correct. While there is no age below which a child cannot be contributorily
negligent, the claimant’s age makes it highly improbable that the claimant would be found
to have been contributorily negligent. The ordinary 8 year old would not be expected to have
fastened their own seatbelt.
Option A is wrong because the defence of contributory negligence is used as against a
claimant ie the child in this case and not their father. The claimant’s father may have been
negligent but the child is not ‘identified’ with the negligence of their parent. If the claimant’s
father has been negligent, then the client can seek a contribution under the Civil Liability
(Contribution) Act 1978. However, this does not prevent the claimant from recovering all of
their compensation from the client.
Option B is wrong because it cannot be said that the claimant was clearly contributory
negligent (see above).
Option C is wrong because the defence of consent only applies as against the claimant. Any
apparent consent by the claimant’s father is irrelevant.
Option E is wrong for the same reason as option C.
Question 2
A claimant suffered a badly broken leg while being a passenger on a motorbike driven
by the defendant. The defendant pulled out of a side road into the path of an oncoming
car. The claimant feared that the car would hit the defendant’s motorbike. In order to
avoid this, they jumped from the motorbike and broke their leg in the fall. In fact, the car
driver managed to swerve around the defendant’s motorbike and avoided a collision. The
claimant was not wearing a crash helmet. The Police Accident Report confirms that the
defendant was required to undertake a breath test after the accident. This indicated that
the defendant’s blood alcohol level was in excess of the legal limit.
Which of the following statements best explains why the defendant may be able to
successfully rely on an applicable defence?
A Because the defendant will be able to rely upon the defence of illegality as the
claimant was not wearing a crash helmet.
B Because the defence of contributory negligence could be relied upon by the defendant
if it can be proven that the claimant must have known that the defendant was
intoxicated.
C Because the claimant was clearly contributory negligent by jumping off the motorbike.
D Because the claimant was clearly contributory negligent by not wearing a crash helmet.
E Because the claimant clearly consented to the risk of injury by travelling as the
defendant’s passenger when it would have been obvious that the defendant was
intoxicated.
a
Answer
Option B is correct – the defence of contributory negligence could be relied upon by the
defendant if it can be proven that the claimant must have known that the defendant was
intoxicated.
Option A is wrong because, while it is a criminal offence not to wear a crash helmet while
travelling on a motorbike, it is not a sufficiently serious offence and there is not a very close
connection between the illegal activity of the claimant and the injury which they suffered. It
would not be contrary to public policy to allow the claimant a remedy in this case.
Option C is wrong because the claimant acted in the ‘agony of the moment’ due to the
defendant’s negligence. The claimant’s actions were a reasonable response to the danger
created by the defendant.
Option D is wrong because, while the failure to wear a crash helmet is treated as an
unreasonable failure to take care of one’s own safety, there must be a causal connection
between the carelessness and the claimant’s injury. Here, the claimant suffered a broken leg
rather than a head injury, ie their carelessness did not contribute to their injury.
Option E is wrong because, in accordance with s 149 Road Traffic Act 1988, it is not possible
for the driver of a motor vehicle to use the defence of consent against a claimant who was a
passenger in their vehicle.
Question 1
The claimant is a specialist machine tool operator whose hand was crushed in a setting
machine. Their employer has admitted liability. The claimant earned £30,000 net prior to
the accident with the expectation that they would have been promoted to a position with
a salary of £40,000 net. Medical evidence confirms that the claimant will never be able
to return to their previous occupation. However, the medical evidence also confirms that
they should be able to return to work in a less skilled occupation earning £15,000 net. The
claimant is 30 years old and plans to retire at 65.
Which of the following statements best explains how the claimant’s claim for future loss
of earnings should be calculated?
A Multiplier (35) x Multiplicand (£25,000 (£40,000 minus £15,000)).
B Multiplier (35) x Multiplicand (£40,000).
C Multiplier (35.11) x Multiplicand (£25,000 (£40,000 minus £15,000)).
D Multiplier (35.11) x Multiplicand (£30,000).
E Multiplier (35.11) x Multiplicand (£40,000).
Answer
Option C is correct. The multiplier is correct because applying the current discount rate of
minus 0.25% will increase the multiplier from 35 (years) to 35.11 using the Ogden tables.
(Note, you are not expected to know the actual multiplier, only that it will increase using the
current discount rate of minus 0.25%.) The multiplicand is also correct because it takes into
account both the claimant’s promotion prospects and also the claimant’s prospects of doing
a less well paid job. The figure of £25,000 is correct as it is the claimant’s annual loss of future
earnings.
Option A is wrong as the multiplier is based upon the number of years that the claimant will
not be able to work in their chosen occupation (here 35 years until they would have retired),
but it must be adjusted in accordance with the discount rate using the Ogden tables.
Option B is wrong for the same reason but also because the multiplicand is incorrect. While
the multiplicand can be adjusted to take into account the claimant’s promotion prospects, it
should also take into account the claimant’s prospects of doing a less well paid job. This is an
aspect of the claimant’s duty to mitigate their loss.
Options D and E are incorrect because, while the multiplier is correct, the multiplicands
are wrong.
Question 2
A solicitor acts for the estate of a person who was killed when a driver negligently collided
into them. The defendant’s insurer has admitted liability. The deceased was a single parent
of a daughter aged 18 years. The daughter has a place to go to university full- time later in
the year. Under the deceased’s will they left all of their estate to their daughter. The estate
has been valued at £1.5 million.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the deceased’s daughter’s
claim for loss of dependency will be successful?
A Yes, because the deceased’s daughter is on the statutory list of people who can claim.
B Yes, because the daughter was clearly financially dependent on the deceased.
C Yes, because the deceased’s daughter is on the statutory list of people who can claim
and they were clearly financially dependent on the deceased.
D No, because the daughter is aged 18 and, therefore, an adult.
E No, because the daughter is due to inherit £1.5 million and cannot, therefore, be said
to be financially dependent upon the deceased.
Answer
Option C is correct as it sets out the two criteria that must be satisfied for a successful claim
for dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 – they must be both on the statutory list of
people who can claim and be financially dependent on the deceased. The daughter satisfies
both criteria as a child of the deceased who was financially dependent on the deceased (see
below).
Options A and B are wrong as they do not set out both criteria.
Option D is wrong because, while generally a child’s period of dependency ends when they
reach the age of 18, it is extended where the child is in, or as here, expected to be in full- time
education.
Option E is wrong as any moneys a dependant is due to inherit from the deceased are
disregarded under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
q
Question 3
A solicitor acts for the estate of a mother who was negligently killed in a workplace
incident. The defendant’s insurer has admitted liability. The deceased had a spouse and
twin children aged 6 months.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the deceased’s children’s
claim for damages for bereavement will be successful?
A Yes, the children have clearly suffered sorrow and grief as a result of their mother’s
death. The amount will be determined by the court.
B Yes, the children have clearly suffered sorrow and grief as a result of their mother’s
death. The amount of damages is a fixed sum.
C Yes, because the children are on the statutory list of people who can claim. However,
the damages will be split between the children and the deceased’s spouse.
D No, because the award of damages for bereavement is a matter of the discretion of
the court and, because of their age, it cannot be said that the children have suffered
sorrow and grief as a result of their mother’s death.
E No, because the children are not on the statutory list of people who can claim.
Option E is correct: the children will not receive the award because they are not on the
statutory list of people who can claim. The spouse will receive the award (in full) as they are
on the statutory list.
Option A is wrong because the criteria for a claim is not whether the claimant has suffered
sorrow and grief as a result of the death. It is also incorrect that the amount will be
determined by the court.
Option B is correct in so far as the award is a fixed sum (currently £15,120), but states the
wrong criteria for a claim
Option C is wrong as children are not on the statutory list of people who can claim. It is
incorrect, therefore, that the award would be shared with the deceased’s spouse. The spouse
would receive the whole award (it is correct that, if there were more than one person who was
entitled to the award, it would be split between them).
Option D is wrong because it states the wrong criteria and because the court has no
discretion on whether the claimant should receive the award or not.
