Ready to prove yourself? Our duty of care quiz puts your tort law negligence quiz skills to the test with real-world scenarios and scored feedback. Whether you're brushing up on negligence duty of care questions or sharpening legal negligence practice, this interactive challenge offers targeted insights. Perfect for law students and paralegals eager to master negligence principles, this free quiz delivers instant scoring and feedback. Dive into each tort law multiple choice item and see how you measure up. Curious about cause and effect? Explore our resource on legal causation tort law, then challenge yourself further with torts multiple choice questions. Ready for a law school style trial? Start now and unlock your potential!
Which landmark case established the modern concept of duty of care in negligence law?
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
Donoghue v Stevenson
Rylands v Fletcher
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) introduced the neighbour principle and recognized a general duty of care in tort law. This decision laid the foundation for modern negligence claims by requiring individuals to avoid acts likely to injure their 'neighbours'. The case involved a decomposed snail in a ginger beer bottle, demonstrating foreseeability of harm. Learn more.
What is the first element required to establish negligence?
Breach of duty
Duty of care
Causation
Remoteness of damage
The first essential element in a negligence claim is establishing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. Without a duty, there can be no breach or liability. This requirement was clarified in the Caparo test for duty of care. More details.
Which test is used in English law to determine whether a duty of care exists?
But-for test
Bolam test
Caparo three-part test
Egg-shell skull rule
The Caparo three-part test assesses foreseeability of harm, proximity of relationship, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. It refined the neighbour principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson. This tripartite analysis is central in modern duty of care inquiries. Read more.
Foreseeability in negligence refers to:
Proving the defendant intended harm
Discovering factual cause of loss
Measuring damages after breach
Anticipating the risk of harm
Foreseeability means that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would predict that their conduct might cause harm. It is the first limb in the Caparo test and in Donoghue v Stevenson's neighbour principle. Without foreseeability, no duty arises. See explanation.
Which relationship automatically creates a duty of care?
Neighbor-stranger
Teacher-student
Shopper-cashier
Doctor-patient
Certain relationships, like doctor-patient, inherently include a duty of care due to professional standards and reliance. Professionals owe clients a higher standard of care based on expertise. These duties extend beyond generic neighbour obligations. More on professional duty.
A breach of duty means the defendant:
Was not the factual cause
Violated a standard of care
Was too remote
Had no foreseeable risk
Breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to meet the standard expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. This may involve negligent acts or omissions. The standard may vary by profession or scenario. Read more.
Which of these best describes the 'proximity' requirement in the Caparo test?
Number of witnesses
Legal closeness between parties
Distance in miles
Quantum of damages
Proximity assesses whether the relationship between claimant and defendant is sufficiently close to justify a duty. This is legal or relational proximity, not physical distance. Without proximity, courts will not impose a duty even if harm was foreseeable. Practical Law explanation.
In omissions cases, a duty of care may arise from:
Unknown third parties
General public risk
Pure economic loss
Special relationship or assumption of responsibility
Omissions usually do not attract liability unless the defendant has assumed responsibility, such as in parent-child or doctor-patient contexts, or where statutory duty exists. Courts require a positive act or special relationship. Further details.
What does the 'fair, just and reasonable' limb prevent?
Any duty between strangers
Liability in the absence of policy considerations
Too lenient damages awards
Foreseeability analysis
The 'fair, just and reasonable' criterion allows courts to refuse a duty of care on policy grounds. It ensures that liability aligns with societal values and avoids disproportionate burdens. This limb was added in Caparo to prevent extending duties too broadly. Learn more.
Which case clarified liability for negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss?
Palsgraf v Long Island
Hedley Byrne v Heller
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Wagon Mound (No 1)
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) established that a special relationship and reliance can create a duty for negligent misstatements, allowing recovery for pure economic loss. The House of Lords held disclaimers could negate this duty. It remains a leading authority on economic loss. Read case.
An occupier of premises owes a duty of care under which statute?
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Defective Premises Act 1972
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
Consumer Protection Act 1987
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 imposes a duty to ensure lawful visitors are reasonably safe on premises. This statutory regime complements common law negligence. Occupiers must guard against dangers known or foreseeable. View Act.
Rescuers injured while saving others are typically:
Barred from claims
Protected by the 'rescue doctrine'
Only recoverable under contract
Subject to contributory negligence
The rescue doctrine allows rescuers to recover if injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence that created the danger. Courts recognize heroic efforts and impose no additional duty tests. The principle prevents discouraging rescue. Further reading.
In establishing factual causation, courts apply which test?
Res ipsa loquitur
Reasonable person test
Balance of probabilities
But-for test
The but-for test asks whether the harm would have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach. It establishes factual causation before considering legal causation. If the harm would not have happened but for the act, causation is satisfied. See details.
Which principle limits liability for unforeseeable types of damage?
Remoteness test
Eggshell rule
Thin skull rule
Volenti non fit injuria
The remoteness test restricts recovery to damage that was reasonably foreseeable at time of breach. It prevents defendants from being liable for freak or wholly unexpected losses. The Wagon Mound case applied this principle. Learn more.
Volenti non fit injuria operates as:
A primary duty
An element of causation
A limitation on damages
A complete defence
Volenti non fit injuria means 'to a willing person, no injury is done'. When valid consent is given, the defendant owes no duty, serving as a complete defence. It requires knowledge of risk and voluntary acceptance. More info.
What outcome in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman influenced pure economic loss claims?
Denied duty for negligent audit report
Expanded duty to investors
Imposed strict liability
Allowed all negligent accounts
In Caparo v Dickman, the House of Lords held there was no duty of care owed by auditors to individual investors for negligent audits, limiting economic loss claims. They applied the three-part test and found insufficient proximity. The decision narrowed the Hedley Byrne principle. Case summary.
Which scenario is most likely to impose a duty of care for omissions?
Random bystander
Person ignoring storm warnings
Employer to an independent contractor
Parent failing to supervise child
Parents owe a statutory and common law duty to supervise and protect their children. Omissions in that context can lead to liability when harm is foreseeable. Courts recognize this as an assumed responsibility. Further reading.
Which duty arises under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984?
Duty to manufacturers
Duty to employees
Duty to trespassers for safety
Duty to lawful visitors
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 extends limited protection to certain trespassers where occupiers know of danger and risk. It requires occupiers to warn or prevent harm if reasonable. This duty supplements the 1957 Act. View Act.
In which circumstance might novel duties of care be recognized by courts?
Where policy favors expansion to new areas
When precedent prohibits duty
If harm is purely emotional
Only in contract cases
Courts may recognize novel duties when policy considerations and social justice demand protecting new classes of victims. The incremental development approach ensures stability but allows evolution. Judges weigh foreseeability, proximity, and policy. Law Commission review.
Which approach did Lord Reed advocate in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire regarding duty of care?
Strict application of Caparo only to novel cases
A wholesale abandonment of Caparo
A unified principle without incremental steps
Duty determined by Parliament alone
In Robinson (2018), Lord Reed held that established categories of duty apply unchanged and the Caparo test is reserved for novel situations. This clarified that Caparo is not a universal formula. Existing precedent remains authoritative. Case details.
0
{"name":"Which landmark case established the modern concept of duty of care in negligence law?", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Which landmark case established the modern concept of duty of care in negligence law?, What is the first element required to establish negligence?, Which test is used in English law to determine whether a duty of care exists?","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}
Score5/20
Easy1/6
Medium1/6
Hard1/6
Expert2/2
AI Study Notes
Email these to me
You can bookmark this page to review your notes in future, or fill out the email box below to email them to yourself.
Study Outcomes
Understand Duty of Care Principles -
Readers will grasp the foundational elements of duty of care in negligence law, including legal definitions and scope.
Analyze Breach of Duty Scenarios -
Participants will evaluate factual situations to determine whether a defendant's conduct falls below the required standard of care.
Evaluate Causation and Damages -
Quiz takers will link actions to outcomes by identifying causation chains and assessing compensable damages in tort law.
Apply Legal Tests and Doctrines -
Users will employ key tests such as the neighbor principle and foreseeability to tackle negligence duty of care questions.
Differentiate Between Negligence Elements -
Readers will distinguish duty, breach, causation, and damages to structure their legal reasoning effectively.
Strengthen Test-Taking Skills -
By answering tort law multiple-choice questions, learners will boost confidence and accuracy in negligence practice exams.
Cheat Sheet
Establishing Duty of Care -
Start with the "neighbour principle" from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 to test foreseeability, proximity, and absence of policy barriers (use the mnemonic "SIAB"). If a reasonable person could predict harm, a duty likely exists, which is vital to any duty of care quiz question.
Assessing Breach via Hand Formula -
Apply Learned Hand's formula (B < P×L) where B is the burden of precautions, P is probability of harm, and L is potential loss (e.g., slipping hazards in public spaces). This cost - benefit approach, rooted in United States v Carroll Towing (1947), clarifies breach analysis.
"But For" Causation & Intervening Acts -
Use the "but for" test to link breach to damage (e.g., but for a missing guardrail, the fall wouldn't have occurred), and always consider novus actus interveniens, which can break causation if an unforeseeable event intervenes.
Remoteness of Damage -
Refer to The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388: only damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable is recoverable. Remember "only what you foresee, not what you foresee as highly unlikely."
Key Defences: Contributory Negligence & Volenti -
Review the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 for partial reduction where the claimant's own fault contributed, and understand volenti non fit injuria requires full awareness and acceptance of risk to bar recovery.
