Negligence — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. What are the three essentials of the tort of negligence?

   • Malice, damage, publication
   • Duty of care, breach of duty, damage caused by the breach (correct answer)
   • Combination, overt act, damage
   • Misrepresentation, reliance, loss

   Explanation. Negligence requires: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty by falling below the standard of care, and (3) damage caused to the plaintiff by that breach.

2. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle' established that a duty of care is owed to

   • Only parties who have a contract with the defendant
   • Persons so closely and directly affected by the act that the defendant ought reasonably to have them in contemplation (correct answer)
   • Only immediate family members of the defendant
   • Only persons who have paid consideration for the product

   Explanation. Lord Atkin's neighbour principle extended the duty of care beyond contractual relationships to anyone reasonably foreseeable as likely to be affected by the defendant's acts or omissions.

3. Why did the manufacturer in Donoghue v Stevenson owe a duty of care to the consumer despite no contract between them?

   • Because the consumer had paid for the product directly
   • Because the product was sold in a form intended to reach the consumer with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination (correct answer)
   • Because the manufacturer had publicly advertised the product's safety
   • Because the retailer had assigned its contractual rights to the consumer

   Explanation. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them in the form it left the manufacturer, without reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.

4. What legal test did Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) apply to determine causation?

   • The remoteness of damage test
   • The 'but-for' test (correct answer)
   • The res ipsa loquitur doctrine
   • The contributory negligence test

   Explanation. The court applied the 'but-for' test of causation — asking whether the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach — and found the harm (death) would have occurred regardless.

5. In Barnett, why did the claim fail despite the hospital's admitted breach of duty?

   • Because the plaintiff had no legal standing to sue
   • Because causation was not established — the patient would have died from the arsenic poisoning even with proper examination (correct answer)
   • Because the hospital had a valid disclaimer of liability
   • Because the breach occurred outside the limitation period

   Explanation. Although the hospital breached its duty by refusing to examine the patient, the medical evidence showed death was inevitable regardless, so the breach was not the cause of death.

6. What does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allow a plaintiff to do?

   • Recover damages without proving any negligence at all
   • Raise an inference of negligence from the circumstances of the accident itself, where such accidents do not ordinarily happen without negligence (correct answer)
   • Shift the entire burden of proof to the defendant in every negligence case
   • Sue for negligence without needing to identify the defendant

   Explanation. Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') allows an inference of negligence where the accident is of a kind that would not normally occur without negligence, and the thing causing harm was under the defendant's control — it does not eliminate the need for proof altogether.

7. Contributory negligence, as a concept, refers to

   • Negligence by two or more defendants acting in combination
   • The plaintiff's own failure to take reasonable care for their own safety, contributing to the harm suffered (correct answer)
   • A defence that completely bars any recovery by the plaintiff in all circumstances
   • Negligence committed by a servant for which the master is vicariously liable

   Explanation. Contributory negligence refers to the plaintiff's own lack of reasonable care contributing to their injury — under modern law, this generally reduces (rather than entirely bars) the damages recoverable, in proportion to the plaintiff's fault.

8. The 'reasonable man' standard of care, as formulated in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, asks whether the defendant

   • Acted with the highest possible degree of care available
   • Did or omitted to do something that a reasonable, prudent person would or would not do in the circumstances (correct answer)
   • Had specialised professional training
   • Intended to cause harm to the plaintiff

   Explanation. The reasonable man test asks whether the defendant's conduct fell below what a reasonable, prudent person would do in the same circumstances — an objective standard, not requiring proof of intent.

9. A hospital's casualty doctor refuses to examine a patient who later dies of poisoning that had already progressed too far to treat by the time he sought help. Applying Barnett, the hospital is

   • Automatically liable since it breached its duty of care
   • Liable only if causation is also established — i.e., that examination would have saved the patient (correct answer)
   • Never liable for any casualty department decisions
   • Liable only if the doctor acted with malice

   Explanation. Breach of duty alone is not sufficient — the plaintiff must also prove that the breach caused the harm; if the harm would have occurred regardless, as in Barnett, the claim fails on causation.

10. Which statement best distinguishes 'duty of care' from 'standard of care' in negligence?

    • They mean the same thing and are used interchangeably
    • Duty of care asks whether a legal obligation to take care exists at all; standard of care asks how much care was required and whether it was met (correct answer)
    • Duty of care applies only to professionals; standard of care applies to everyone else
    • Duty of care is a criminal law concept; standard of care is a civil law concept

    Explanation. Duty of care is the threshold question of whether the defendant owed the plaintiff any legal obligation to take care at all; standard of care is the separate question of what level of care was required and whether the defendant met it.

11. Under the Caparo test, a duty of care arises where harm is foreseeable, there is proximity, and:

    • The defendant is a professional
    • It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (correct answer)
    • The plaintiff paid for the service
    • A statute provides a remedy

    Explanation. Caparo Industries v. Dickman asks for foreseeability, proximity, and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

12. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court held that a doctor is criminally liable for negligence only if the negligence is:

    • Slight
    • Gross (correct answer)
    • Contributory
    • Innocent

    Explanation. Criminal liability of a doctor requires gross negligence, a very high degree of negligence.