TOPIC 7: Negligence Flashcards
Which of the following elements would a plaintiff suing in the tort of negligence have to prove in order to succeed in the action?
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff. and that the harm is not too remote.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff. that the harm is not too remote. and that there is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff and that the defendant intended to cause that harm. and that the harm is not too remote.
A duty of care was owed to the plaintiff. that the duty of care has been breached by the defendant. and that the harm is not too remote.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff. and that the harm is not too remote.
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 most importantly demonstrates which of the following?
Long sixes are a rarity in cricket.
Passers-by of cricket grounds are entitled to the full protection of the law in circumstances where they are hit by an escaping cricket ball.
High fences are unnecessary at cricket grounds.
Pedestrians should avoid walking near sports venues when games are in progress as they could be injured.
If the chance of a passer-by of a cricket ground being harmed is very unlikely, then extra preventative expenditure by those operating the cricket ground is unwarranted.
If the chance of a passer-by of a cricket ground being harmed is very unlikely, then extra preventative expenditure by those operating the cricket ground is unwarranted.
To prove a case in negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant:
breached a statutory duty of care.
all the other answers are correct.
did not measure up to the level of an averagely prudent person.
failed to perform the contract between them with due care.
did not measure up to the level of an averagely prudent person.
Ned is reversing out of a car park at the supermarket when he hits a trailer towed by Homer who has entered the car park through the exit and was passing behind Ned as he reversed. Ned did not see Homer because he was looking in the direction he expected the cars to come from.
Which of the following is the most likely result of a claim for damages brought by Ned against Homer?
Homer is not liable because Ned reversed into him.
Homer is not liable to pay any damages suffered by Ned because Ned is insured.
Homer was performing an unusual manoeuvre by entering the car park by way of the exit so he is entirely to blame and must bear the full cost of the damage suffered by Ned.
Homer owed a duty of care to Ned but the damages are likely to be reduced because Ned failed to ensure the way was clear before he began reversing.
Homer owed a duty of care to Ned but the damages are likely to be reduced because Ned failed to ensure the way was clear before he began reversing.
Opening the floodgates is a principle which is relevant, in negligence, to the court determining:
whether it is just and reasonable to find a duty of care in the case in question.
whether it is appropriate in the case in question to lower the requisite standard of care.
the degree of sharing of liability where there are several defendants in the case in question.
liability in a case involving vicarious liability.
liability in a case where the defendant alleges a new intervening act.
whether it is just and reasonable to find a duty of care in the case in question.
Andrew attends a barbeque with his girlfriend Grace. When it comes time to leave Andrew lets Grace drive his car as he thinks that he has had more to drink than Grace. Grace is reluctant to drive. She protests that she too has been drinking but Andrew insists. On the way home Grace loses control of the vehicle and hits a parked car. She is breath tested by the Police and charged with, and subsequently found guilty of, driving under the influence of alcohol.
If Andrew sues Grace in negligence for the damage to his car how much is he likely to recover in damages?
Less than the total amount of the damage because Grace can invoke the provisions of the Contributory Negligence Act.
The total cost of the damage.
Nothing at all because he knew she had been drinking when she drove his car.
Nothing at all because Grace has already been punished by the courts which means that Andrew is barred from suing her for damages as you cannot be punished twice for the same offence.
Less than the total amount of the damage because Grace can invoke the provisions of the Contributory Negligence Act.
Charlie borrows Tane’s car without his permission. He parks it at the supermarket but forgets to remove the keys from the ignition. The car is stolen and damaged. If Tane sues Charlie in negligence what is the likely result?
Tane can recover from Charlie because he failed to act reasonably
Tane cannot recover from Charlie because Charlie did not damage the car.
Charlie is not liable because he did not intend the car to be stolen.
Charlie is liable because what he did was immoral.
Tane can recover from Charlie because he failed to act reasonably
Cletus parked his car and prepared to open his door. He checked his rear vision mirror. He saw a bus approaching and waited till it passed. He failed to check the mirror again and opened his door. At that moment Teeny was passing Cletus on his bicycle. He was struck by the door and fell off. He broke his arm and damaged his bicycle. What damages can Teeny recover?
Only the damage relating to his bicycle because he must accept some responsibility for the crash as he should have anticipated Cletus was likely to open the door.
Nothing. Teeny by riding a bicycle, an inherently dangerous activity, can be said to have voluntarily assumed the risk of an accident.
Only the damage to his bicycle as the other loss is barred by the Accident Compensation legislation.
All the damage he suffered as Cletus is liable for all foreseeable damage arising from his act of negligence.
Only the damage to his bicycle as the other loss is barred by the Accident Compensation legislation.
Which of the following elements would a plaintiff suing in the tort of negligence have to prove in order to succeed in the action?
A duty of care was owed to the plaintiff; that the duty of care has been breached by the defendant; and that the harm is not too remote.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff; the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff; and that the harm is not too remote.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff; the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff; that the harm is not too remote; and that there is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff; the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff and that the defendant intended to cause that harm; and that the harm is not too remote.
A breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff; the fact that the breach caused the harm to the plaintiff; and that the harm is not too remote.
Jake had just obtained his driving licence when he collides with a parked car. What standard of care will Jake be judged by?
The standard of a newly qualified driver. Jake’s lack of experience will be taken into account.
The amount of harm caused to the other car.
Jake will be judged by the standards of other drivers of his age, experience and his ability to pay for the damage caused.
The standard of a competent driver
The standard of a competent driver
Al is driving a stolen car one night. In his rear vision mirror he notices the flashing lights of a police car. The police are actually chasing another stolen car driven by Barry but Al mistakenly believes that the police are chasing him. He panics, swerves and hits Charlie’s car which is parked beside the road.
Which of the following is the most accurate statement in respect of liability for the damage to Charlie’s car?
The police are liable for the damage because, but for their chasing Barry the accident would not have happened.
Both Al and Barry are liable because stealing a car causes a foreseeable risk that the police would give chase and that damage to property would result.
Al is not liable for the damage, because if it had not been for the police chasing Barry the accident would not have happened.
Barry is liable for the damage caused by Al because but for Barry stealing the car, the accident would not have happened.
Both Al and Barry are liable because stealing a car causes a foreseeable risk that the police would give chase and that damage to property would result.
You held a barbeque for your neighbours two weeks ago. As a result of your poor hygiene and food handling one of your neighbours contracts salmonella bacillus (a disease) and is confined to bed for a week with the subsequent food poisoning. Your neighbour is a plumber who would normally expect to earn $1,000 over the period he was sick.
What is your legal position?
You are only liable for your neighbour’s doctor’s bills because loss of income is not foreseeable.
You are not liable to your neighbour because the accident compensation regime in New Zealand also covers loss of earnings caused by disease.
You are liable for the loss of your neighbour’s income because you breached the duty of care owed to him.
You are not liable for any loss suffered by your neighbour because you do not owe him a duty of care.
You are liable for the loss of your neighbour’s income because you breached the duty of care owed to him.
In the law of negligence, the higher the potential risks associated with doing something:
the less likely a court would be to impose a higher standard of care upon a defendant.
the more likely a court would be to impose a higher standard of care upon a defendant.
the more likely a court would be to excuse the actions of the defendant.
the less likely a court would be to find that a duty of care was even owed to the plaintiff.
the more likely a court would be to impose a higher standard of care upon a defendant.
Marcia is driving home when her car is struck by a car being driven on the wrong side of the road. On investigation it is discovered that two of her tyres have tread below the minimum tread depth set out in the Road Code.
What is her legal position as regards a claim against the other driver?
She may be liable for a transport offence and if so is liable for all of her loss and damage.
She may be liable for a transport offence but can still claim for her loss and damage.
She cannot claim anything because she voluntarily assumed the risk of an accident by illegally driving on substandard tyres.
Marcia is partially liable for the accident so the damages she claims may be reduced under the Contributory Negligence Act.
She may be liable for a transport offence but can still claim for her loss and damage.
