AQA A-Level Law 3.3 Tort overview quiz quiz

Duty of care, breach of duty, and damage caused that is not too remote

A valid offer, an acceptance of that offer, and consideration passing between the parties

Actus reus, mens rea and a causal link between the conduct and the prohibited consequence

Proximity of relationship, reasonable foreseeability of harm, and an intention to cause it

Donoghue v Stevenson

Caparo Industries v Dickman

The Wagon Mound (No 1)

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

The standard of the single most cautious and careful person it is possible to imagine

The defendant's own honest belief about whether they had taken sufficient care at the time

The standard of the reasonable person doing the relevant activity

Whatever particular standard of care the claimant happened to expect from the defendant

All damage that the defendant in fact caused

Only damage the defendant intended

Only physical injury, never property damage

Only damage of a reasonably foreseeable type

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984

The Consumer Rights Act 2015

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

The defendant must be shown to have acted negligently and carelessly in handling the thing

There must be a non-natural use of land and an escape causing foreseeable damage

The claimant must have suffered actual personal injury rather than mere damage to property

The interference complained of must have been continuous and ongoing over a great many years

The 'but for' test

The Caparo test

The close connection test

The reasonable foreseeability test

The claim is defeated entirely and the claimant recovers nothing at all from the defendant

The defendant is given a criminal sanction such as a fine or a term of imprisonment for it

The claimant is ordered to pay the whole of the defendant's legal costs of the proceedings

Damages are reduced by a just and equitable proportion

That the claimant knew of the precise risk and freely and voluntarily agreed to run it

That the claimant was partly careless and so contributed to their own injury in some way

That the harm which the claimant suffered was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant

That a clearly worded warning notice about the danger had been prominently displayed nearby

The defendant's intention to kill

The locality of the land

Whether a contract existed between the parties

The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt