CILEx L6 Tort Law 1

Question 1

In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], Lord Atkin articulated which foundational principle in the law of negligence?

Accepted Answer

The neighbour principle, requiring care towards those closely and directly affected by one's acts

Answer

Lord Atkin's neighbour principle established that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, forming the foundation of modern negligence law.

Question 2

Which case established the modern three-stage test for determining whether a duty of care exists in novel situations?

Accepted Answer

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]

Answer

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] established the three-stage test: (1) reasonable foreseeability of damage, (2) proximity between claimant and defendant, and (3) that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Question 3

The Bolam test for professional negligence, supplemented by Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1997], now requires that a professional's practice must:

Accepted Answer

Be capable of withstanding logical scrutiny and analysis by the court

Answer

Bolitho added that the court may reject expert evidence supporting a professional practice if that practice cannot withstand logical scrutiny, preventing the Bolam test from being satisfied merely by adducing expert evidence.

Question 4

In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969], the claimant's negligence claim failed on which element of liability?

Accepted Answer

Causation — even if the doctor had examined the patient, he would have died from arsenic poisoning anyway

Answer

The claim failed the 'but for' test: medical evidence established the patient would have died even if he had been examined and treated, so the doctor's breach did not cause the death.

Question 5

The Privy Council's decision in Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] changed the test for remoteness of damage in negligence by replacing:

Accepted Answer

The direct consequence test from Re Polemis with a reasonable foreseeability test

Answer

Wagon Mound (No 1) overruled Re Polemis, holding that a defendant is only liable for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable, not for all direct consequences of their negligence however unforeseeable.

CILEx Level 6 Practice Test

CILEx Level 6 Practice Test

CILEx L6 Tort Law 1