Test Bank Chapter 6 Special Duty Problems Public Bodies

Chapter 6: Special duty problems: public bodies

Test Bank

Type: multiple response question

Title: Chapter 06 Question 01

1) In which of the following situations would the defendant be considered to be a public body?

Please select all that apply.

a. A doctor in an NHS hospital performs an operation negligently.

b. A doctor in an expensive private hospital performs an operation negligently.

c. The police force fail to warn shoppers that a gang of pickpockets is operating in the shopping centre they are shopping in.

d. A social worker employed by the county council crashes her car after driving carelessly home from work.

e. Some cooking oil is spilt on the floor in an aisle in Marks and Spencer, but is not cleared up for hours, and someone slips on it.

f. Council dustbin collectors drive their lorry into a parked car.

g. A university groundsman fails to replace a loose paving stone and someone trips over it and injures themselves.

h. A comprehensive school groundsman fails to replace a loose paving stone and a parent dropping their children at school trips over it and injures themselves.

i. A couple’s house burns to the ground after their call for a fire engine is not relayed to the fire officers on duty for more than an hour.

Type: multiple response question

Title: Chapter 06 Question 02

2) What reasons have been given by the courts to justify treating public bodies differently from private bodies and individuals?

Please select all that apply.

a. Difficulties in identifying where exactly things went wrong – a public body is not a single entity therefore hard to pin down exactly what the negligent act is or who did it

b. ‘Floodgate’ concerns about a significant increase in the scope of tort liability if claims against public bodies are not restricted. Citizens should claim against public bodies via public law mechanisms, as these would be more appropriate.

c. ‘Floodgate’ concerns about a significant increase in the volume of claims (in particular frivolous claims) if claims against public bodies are not restricted

d. Imposing a duty might have the effect of encouraging defensive practices in public bodies and the individuals working for them.

e. Public bodies should not generally owe individuals a duty of care in negligence as taxpayers would not like paying (via compensation payments) for the wrongs committed by public bodies.

f. It is easier for a public body to cause harm to an individual therefore it should not be too easy for a duty of care to be found, but one should exist only in the most severe of cases.

Type: matching question

Title: Chapter 06 Question 03

3) For each of the following cases, match the case name to the correct date.

a. D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust = 2005

b. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire = 1989

c. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police = 2015

d. Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council = 1997

e. Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex = 2008

f. X v Bedfordshire = 1995

g. Z v UK and TP & KM v UK = 2001

h. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police = 2018

i. Kent v Griffiths = 2001

j. Osman v UK = 1997

k. Poole Borough Council v GN and another = 2019

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 06 Question 04

4) It is a well-established principle of law that a public body will owe an individual a private law duty of care if the negligent exercise of its powers makes an existing situation worse.

a. True

b. False

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 06 Question 05

5) What is the best explanation of the outcome of D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2005]?

a. No duty of care was owed; the House of Lords followed the earlier decision in X v Bedfordshire in which care authorities were found not to owe a duty of care to individuals due to various policy reasons, including the inability to identify exactly who of many personnel involved may have been negligent and the fact that the imposition of a duty would ‘cut across the statutory framework’ such services operated in.

b. A duty of care was owed to all of the claimants.

c. A duty of care was owed to the children but not to their parents.

d. A duty of care was owed to the parents but not to their children.

Type: matching question

Title: Chapter 06 Question 06

6) Match the case name with the human rights violations found by the European Court of Human Rights.

a. Osman v UK = Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial)

b. Z v UK = Violation of Article 3 (right to freedom from inhumane and degrading treatment)

c. TP & KM v UK = Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)

d. All cases listed = Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

e. None of the cases listed = Violation of Article 2 (the right to life)

Type: matching question

Title: Chapter 06 Question 07

7) Match the activity/service with the leading authority or precedent in that area.