Question 1

In which case did Lord Toulson say:&#10;The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather than by the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.&#10;A) Patel v Mizra [2016]&#10;B) Gray v Thames Trains [2009].&#10;C) Pitts v Hunt [1991]&#10;D) Hounga v Allen [2014]

Accepted Answer

Lord Toulson made this statement in the case of Patel v Mizra [2016], emphasizing the importance of a principled and transparent approach in legal assessments.

Question 2

Match For each of the following cases name the highest court reached or complete the case name.&#10;-Morris v Murray&#10;A) CA&#10;B) Livox Quarries&#10;C) KBD&#10;D) Thames Trains

Accepted Answer

Morris v Murray was a case in the UK involving a dispute over a land sale contract. The case was brought before the Court of Appeal (CA) and is believed to be the highest court reached in this case.

Question 3

Match For each of the following cases name the highest court reached or complete the case name.&#10;-Jones v&#10;A) CA&#10;B) Livox Quarries&#10;C) KBD&#10;D) Thames Trains

Accepted Answer

The case "Jones v Livox Quarries" is a well-known case in tort law, specifically dealing with contributory negligence.

Question 4

Match For each of the following cases name the highest court reached or complete the case name.&#10;-Dann v Hamilton&#10;A) CA&#10;B) Livox Quarries&#10;C) KBD&#10;D) Thames Trains

Accepted Answer

The case "Dann v Hamilton" reached the King's Bench Division (KBD).

Question 5

Match For each of the following cases name the highest court reached or complete the case name.&#10;-Gray v&#10;A) CA&#10;B) Livox Quarries&#10;C) KBD&#10;D) Thames Trains

Accepted Answer

The answer of Match For each of the following cases...

Question 6

Which of the following is a partial defence? Please select all that apply.&#10;A) Voluntary assumption of the risk&#10;B) Contributory negligence&#10;C) Illegality

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence is a partial defence as it reduces the claimant's damages based on their own negligence or contribution to the harm suffered. Voluntary assumption of the risk and illegality are not partial defences but rather complete defences or bars to recovery.

Question 7

In order to establish defence of voluntary assumption of the risk what does the defendant need to show?&#10;A) That the claimant was aware of the possibility of injury, although not the nature or extent of the injury, and voluntarily agreed to the risk of harm&#10;B) That the claimant knew the nature and extent of the risk of harm and agreed, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to it&#10;C) That the claimant knew the nature and extent of the risk of harm and voluntarily agreed to it&#10;D) That the claimant was unaware of the possibility of injury and voluntarily agreed to engage in the activity with the defendant

Accepted Answer

To establish a defence of voluntary assumption of the risk, the defendant needs to show that the claimant knew the nature and extent of the risk of harm and voluntarily agreed to it. The claimant must have had a full understanding of the nature and extent of the risk and must have voluntarily accepted it. If the claimant was unaware of the possibility of injury, the defence of voluntary assumption of the risk would not apply. Option A is incorrect because the claimant must have known the nature and extent of the risk of harm. Option B is incorrect because the claimant may have agreed to the risk involuntarily. Option D is incorrect because the claimant must have had knowledge of the possibility of injury.

Question 8

A cycle-courier is knocked down and seriously injured as they swerve to avoid a pedestrian who steps out into the road, without looking. They are not wearing a cycle helmet. Which of the following do you think would be a good argument for the pedestrian?

A) That the cyclist in choosing to be a courier had voluntarily accepted the risk of serious injury.
B) That the cyclist was contributory negligent in failing to wear a cycle helmet
C) That they are not to blame. The accident was the cyclist's fault
D) That as they are uninsured it would not be fair, just, and reasonable to hold them liable

Accepted Answer

The argument that the cyclist was contributory negligent for not wearing a cycle helmet could be seen as a good argument for the pedestrian. This suggests that the cyclist had a role in the severity of their injuries by not taking the precaution of wearing a helmet, which could potentially mitigate the pedestrian's liability.

Question 9

Where is the following quote from?&#10;'Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reasons of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks it is just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage'.&#10;A) Morris v Murray&#10;B) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1.&#10;C) Froom v Butcher&#10;D) Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd

Accepted Answer

This quote is the exact wording of section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.

Question 10

Which of the following does not need to be established in order to raise the defence of contributory negligence?&#10;A) That the claimant failed to exercise reasonable care for their own safety&#10;B) That the claimant's conduct broke the chain of causation&#10;C) That the claimant's conduct contributed to the injuries they suffered

Accepted Answer

The defence of contributory negligence requires the establishment that the claimant failed to exercise reasonable care for their own safety and that their conduct contributed to the injuries they suffered. However, it does not require that the claimant's conduct broke the chain of causation. The defendant can still be held liable even if the claimant's conduct contributed to their injuries, as long as the defendant's breach of duty was a significant factor in causing the harm.

Question 11

Why was voluntary assumption of risk rejected as a defence by the Court of Appeal in Pitts v Hunt?&#10;A) Because the claimant did not willingly accept the risk of injury&#10;B) Because it was excluded by s 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988&#10;C) Because the courts considered that the case was better dealt with on the principles of illegality&#10;D) Because the courts considered that the case was better dealt with on the principles of contributory negligence

Accepted Answer

The answer of Why was voluntary assumption of risk rejected...

Question 12

Following the decision in Froom v Butcher by what percentage are a claimant's damages likely to be reduced for contributory negligence if they would have avoided all injury had they been wearing a seat-belt?

A) 10%
B) 15%
C) 20%
D) 25%

Accepted Answer

The answer of Following the decision in Froom v Butcher...

Deck 10: Defences to Negligence