Question 1

In the Donoghue v Stevenson (the Snail in the bottle case)the House of Lords held that:

Accepted Answer

All three options presented in the question are accurate reflections of the ruling in the Donoghue v Stevenson case. The concept of "neighbour" in this context refers to anyone who might be affected by your actions, and the duty of care requires taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to that person. It is important to note that this ruling established the foundation of the modern law of negligence in the UK and has been influential in other common law jurisdictions.

Question 2

To establish if the defendant has breached a duty of care,the court will apply:

Accepted Answer

To establish if the defendant has breached a duty of care, all three factors mentioned in options A, B, and C must be considered by the court. Hence, the correct answer is D - All of the above.

Question 3

The 'scope of liability' test in remoteness of harm in a negligence action requires the plaintiff to prove that:

Accepted Answer

The 'scope of liability' test in remoteness of harm in a negligence action primarily requires the plaintiff to prove that the kind of harm was reasonably foreseeable. This means that the defendant could have reasonably anticipated the type of harm that occurred as a result of their actions.

Question 4

A court has found that a plaintiff is entitled to damages of $150 000 but that her contributory negligence was 70%.What damages will the plaintiff be awarded?

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff's damages are reduced by her percentage of contributory negligence. Therefore, she is entitled to 30% of $150,000, which is $45,000.

Question 5

Your business premises were flooded because old water pipes burst in the premises next door.If you claim for the sales you missed while your place was being repaired,the type of loss you would claim for is known as:

Accepted Answer

The type of loss in this scenario is pure economic loss because it refers to the financial impact suffered by the business as a result of the flooding, such as the sales missed during repair time. The other choices, such as floodgate loss or collateral property loss, do not accurately describe this type of loss.

Question 6

Which of the following is a defence to a negligence legal action?

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence is a defense in a negligence lawsuit where the defendant argues that the plaintiff also failed to take proper care to avoid the accident or harm, thereby reducing or eliminating the defendant's liability.

Question 7

Which of the following is an essential element of a tort of negligence?

Accepted Answer

A duty of care is an essential element of a tort of negligence. Consideration, acceptance, and an offer are elements of a contract, not a tort.

Question 8

Murray,a chartered accountant,gave free financial advice to Sabrina.He told her the Boom company "was sure to make money" and encouraged her to invest in it.In fact,Murray had not properly investigated the company.Sabrina followed Murray's advice and lost all of her investment.If she sued Murray for negligent misstatement which of the following tests would the court apply?

Accepted Answer

All of the above tests are commonly applied in cases of negligent misstatement. A) Should Murray have reasonably foreseen that Sabrina would rely on the statement? - This is the foreseeability test. B) Was Murray's statement seriously made in serious circumstances? - This is the gravity or seriousness test. C) Did Sabrina reasonably rely on Murray's advice? - This is the reliance test. D) Did Murray fail to exercise reasonable care? - This is the standard of care test. Therefore, all the tests are relevant and would be applied by the court.

Question 9

Last month you damaged your car when its front wheels dropped into a large hole in a road which is maintained by the local council.You have learnt that the hole had been in the road for three weeks,the council knew about the problem,and it would not have been expensive to fix.Which of the following statements best expresses the council's legal position?

Accepted Answer

The council knew about the problem and did not take action, therefore they had a duty of care to prevent the risk that caused the loss. They may be found liable under the legal principle of negligence, as they had a responsibility to maintain the road and failed to do so.

Question 10

When Brittany was being taught to drive by her Aunt Hanna,she crashed the car into an electricity pole and badly injured Hanna.If Hanna sued Brittany for negligence a court would probably rule that:

Accepted Answer

In this scenario, Brittany breached her duty to drive with reasonable care, which is expected of all drivers, regardless of their experience. As a result, Hanna suffered injuries. Therefore, a court would likely rule that Brittany is liable for the damages caused by her negligence.

Question 11

A surgeon did not warn a patient that the operation could result in an illness because the illness was very rare and highly unlikely.Although he performed the operation with skill and care,the patient contracted the illness several weeks later.She is suing him for negligence.Most leading Australian specialists in the same field have said they would not have warned the patient.Which statement best expresses the most likely court ruling?

Accepted Answer

The fact that most leading Australian specialists in the same field would not have warned the patient does not necessarily absolve the surgeon from liability. The standard of care that professionals must satisfy is determined by the court based on what is reasonable, not solely based on what is accepted by the medical profession. Therefore, if the court finds that a reasonable surgeon would have warned the patient of the potential risks, the surgeon may be liable for negligence.

Question 12

The main ratio decidendi (reason for the decision)in the Snail in the bottle case was:

Accepted Answer

The main ratio decidendi in the Snail in the bottle case was that the defendant (manufacturer of the drink) had breached their duty of care by failing to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they could reasonably foresee could cause loss or injury to the plaintiff (consumer who found the snail in the drink). The ruling established the principle of negligence in tort law, which states that individuals and organizations have a legal duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. Option A is a bit too broad and doesn't fully capture the specific principle established in this case. Option C is too specific and only applies to the facts of this particular case, rather than a broader principle.

Question 13

A tort is conduct that is:

Accepted Answer

A tort is a civil wrong that causes loss or injury to another person or their property, typically through negligence or carelessness. It is not criminal, and it does not involve a breach of contract, although it may result from intentional or malicious conduct.

Question 14

To prove negligence a plaintiff must be able to prove:

Accepted Answer

To prove negligence, the plaintiff must be able to prove all three elements - breach of duty of care to the plaintiff, resulting in loss or harm to the plaintiff, and existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, the correct answer is D, all of the above.

Question 15

The first Australian case that recognised that a plaintiff may be able to recover damages for "pure economic loss" was:

Accepted Answer

The case of Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v The Dredge "Wellemstad" (1976) recognised that a plaintiff may be able to recover damages for "pure economic loss" in certain circumstances. The case involved Caltex being unable to operate an oil refinery due to the dredge "Wellemstad" damaging an underwater pipeline. The court held that Caltex was entitled to recover economic losses resulting from the closure of the refinery, even though there was no physical damage to their property. This case established a significant precedent for the recovery of pure economic loss in Australian law.

Question 16

If the defence of contributory negligence is proved:

Accepted Answer

If the defence of contributory negligence is proved, the court reduces the damages payable by a percentage that reflects the extent to which the plaintiff contributed to his or her loss. This means that the plaintiff will still be entitled to damages, but the amount may be reduced based on their level of responsibility for the injury.

Question 17

Denzil is blind.He was badly injured when he fell into a Telstra trench on the side of public footpath.Telstra workers had placed a rope barrier,neon lights and large warning sign around the trench.Denzil claims Telstra was negligent.Which of the following statements best sums up his legal rights?

Accepted Answer

Telstra had control over the section of the footpath where the trench was located and had taken measures to warn the public about the trench. However, Denzil's special vulnerability as a blind person may make Telstra liable for the injuries he sustained.

Question 18

A plaintiff in a personal injury action usually has the right to take legal action for up to how many years after the loss has occurred?

Accepted Answer

A plaintiff in a personal injury action usually has the right to take legal action for up to three years after the loss has occurred. This is the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in most states.

Question 19

Crane,Chandler & Christmas & Co (CCE)is a firm of accountants.CCE strongly recommended to Baxter,who was a possible client,that he should re- structure his finances by taking out a foreign loan in French francs.Baxter followed their advice and lost a large sum of money.He now knows CCE had no expertise in foreign loans and had not carried out appropriate research.CCE argue they are not liable because they gave their advice for free.It is very likely that:

Accepted Answer

CCE may be held liable for negligent misstatement as they gave advice in an area where they lacked expertise without carrying out appropriate research. The fact that they provided the advice for free does not necessarily absolve them of liability.

Question 20

Which of the following statements provides the best summary of the duty of care owed by an occupier of premises?

Accepted Answer

The duty of care owed by an occupier of premises is to take reasonable care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk to anyone who enters their premises. This includes both invited and uninvited visitors, not just guests. The duty of care is not based on the visitor's status, but rather on the occupier's knowledge of any potential risks on their premises. The other options presented are either incorrect or irrelevant to the duty of care owed by an occupier.

Quiz 3: Civil Liability: Tort of Negligence

In the Donoghue v Stevenson (the Snail in the bottle case) the House of Lords held that: