Test Bank Chapter 9 Causation And The Remoteness Of Damage

Chapter 9: Causation and the remoteness of damage

Test Bank

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 09 Question 01

1) Which of the following correctly describes the purpose of the ‘but for’ test?

a. To decide between the necessary conditions of an accident

b. To determine for which consequences the defendant is liable

c. To determine what in fact caused the injury

d. To determine whether the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the negligence

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 09 Question 02

2) Judy had pains in her chest and went to hospital. A doctor gave her a cursory examination and told her to stay in the waiting room, where she later had a heart attack and died. Medical evidence suggested that even if the doctor had treated her properly, she would still have had only a 30 per cent chance of living.

True or False: The doctor’s negligence was a cause in fact of Judy’s death.

a. True

b. False

Type: matching question

Title: Chapter 09 Question 03

3) Match the potentially problematic element of causation to the scenarios given.

a. A goes to hospital with severe head pains after banging his head on the floor of a playground. B, a doctor negligently examines him and sends him home. Later, A dies from a blood clot on the brain. Medical evidence showed that there was nothing B could have done to save him. = Cause in fact (‘but for’ test)

b. A lit a firework but failed to ensure that it was properly secured in its holder before doing so. The firework went off at an angle, hitting a shelf in B’s shop. An apple on the shelf rolled off and fell into B’s coffee, which was on the counter, spilling some of the hot liquid onto B’s arm and causing third degree burns. = Cause in law (remoteness)

c. A negligently caused a car crash on a motorway. B, who was driving one of the other vehicles, was slightly injured and stayed in her car and waited for help. C, an ambulance driver, responding to the scene, collided with B’s car at speed and seriously injured B. = Intervening act breaking the chain of causation

Type: matching question

Title: Chapter 09 Question 04

4) Match the case name to the exception to the ‘but for’ rule, the case created or helped to develop, or to the problem that faced the court.

a. Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] = Two potential causes (one negligent) but cumulatively more likely to cause the condition, so held that the negligence made a ‘material contribution’ to the harm

b. McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] = Two potential causes (one negligent) but a non-cumulative condition (a single exposure would be enough) so 50:50 on ‘but for’ test – court held it was enough that the negligence ‘materially increased the risk’ of the condition

c. Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] = Multiple potential causes (one negligent) – defendant’s negligence could not pass the ‘but for’ test so the claimant failed

d. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] = Multiple potential causes (all negligent) but a non-cumulative condition (a single exposure would be enough) so liability could not be established on ‘but for’ test – court held it was enough that the negligence ‘materially increased the risk’ of the condition

e. Williams vThe Bermuda Hospitals Board (Bermuda) [2016] = Two potential causes (one negligent) but treated as cumulative, despite the medical context, and held that the negligence made a ‘material contribution’ to the harm

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 09 Question 05

5) The difference between the decisions in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] and the similar case of Barker v Corus [2006] is not in the reason for the decision but only in the decision relating to the extent of the defendant’s liability.

a. True

b. False

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 09 Question 06

6) Select the best explanation, from the list below, of the outcome of Chester v Afshar [2005].

a. Doctors only need inform patients of risks attached to medical operations if the risks are thought to be medically significant.

b. Doctors must inform patients of known risks attached to medical operations, even if they are very unlikely to materialise.

c. Doctors need never inform patients of the risks attached to medical operations.

Type: fill-in-blank

Title: Chapter 09 Question 07

7) In his dissenting opinion in Gregg v Scott [2005] (the case that has ruled out, at least for now, claims for ‘lost chance’ in a medical setting), Lord Nicholls said that the case:

‘raises a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world. The division derives essentially from different perceptions of what constitutes injustice in a common type of medical negligence case. Some believe a remedy is essential and that a principled ground for providing an appropriate remedy can be found. Others are not persuaded. I am in the former camp’ (at [1]).

He goes on to say that the idea that a patient can only recover damages if his original chance of recovery had been more than 50 per cent is ‘­­­­________ and indefensible’ (at [3]).

Type: multiple response question

Title: Chapter 09 Question 08

8) Which of the following correctly explain the cause in law test?

Please select all that apply.

a. Recovery is only allowed when the harm is deemed to have been foreseeable to the defendant.

b. Recovery is only allowed when the harm is not too remote a consequence of the defendant’s negligence.

c. Recovery will be denied when a harm is considered to be too remote a consequence of the defendant’s negligence.

d. Harms that were unforeseeable to the defendant are not recoverable.

e. Recovery is only allowed when the harm is deemed to have been foreseeable to the claimant.

f. If the claimant is too remote then recovery will be denied.

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 09 Question 09

9) To get past the cause in law test, the full extent of the damage has to be foreseeable.

a. True

b. False

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 09 Question 10

10) Which of the following can potentially break the chain of causation?

a. The natural response of the claimant

b. The defendant’s negligence

c. A third party’s negligence