report this ad
Just For Fun
Games to Consider
Create a Quiz
Locations & Scores
Become a Host
A-level Law Unit 2 case studies (AQA)
Can you name the case studies for A-level Law Unit 2 (AQA)?
Quiz not verified by Sporcle
Hogwarts Potions Exam
Find the US States - No Outlines Minefield
30 Second Logic Puzzle
Countries: After E
Rate 5 stars
Rate 4 stars
Rate 3 stars
Rate 2 stars
Rate 1 star
How to Play
Click the green button to start and enter the correct answers below
Only criminal and tort law included, not law of contract. Cases such as 'R v Smith' need only be enterred as 'Smith'. However DPP etc. are needed.
The actus reus must be voluntary
This is not true with State of Affair cases
Ommiting to act when under a contractual duty will form the actus reus
Ommiting to act when under a duty because of a relationship will form the actus reus
Ommiting to act when under a duty which has been taken on voluntarily will form the actus reus
Ommiting to act when under a duty because of an official position will form the actus reus
Ommiting to act when under a duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events will form the actus reus
The defendant's actions must be the factual cause of the consequence
'Thin skull rule'
The act of a third party DID break the chain of causation
The victim's own act DID break the chain of causation
There WAS transferred malice
The offence was truly criminal and therefore not one of strict liability
Set about the rules for inferring whether an offence is one of strict liability
Assault & Battery
Assault can be through a closed window
Battery can be through a booby trap
Battery can be through a continuing act
s47 OAPA 1861
Loss of consciousness
The mens rea may only be for assault
Cutting hair may be a s47 offence
s20 OAPA 1861
A wound must cause a break in the entire skin
It is only necessary to realise the risk of some harm
Severe bruising in a child may be GBH
Transmission of diseases may be GBH
Duty of care
The 'neighbour' test
This was expanded in
The consequences WERE reasonably foreseeable
There WAS sufficient proximity
It WAS fair, just & reasonable to impose a duty
Breach of duty
The 'reasonable man test'
Standard of care for experts
Standard of care for learners
The risk was too slight
The risk was unknown
Breach of Duty
It was not practical to take precautions
The seriousness of harm was greater
It was of social importance
Res ipsa loquitur
The negligent act was not the factual cause of the damage
The damage was too remote
The 'thin skull rule'
The type of harm was foreseeable but occured in an unforeseeable way
report this ad
You're not logged in!
Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Connect with Facebook
Connect with Google
Sign Up with Email
You Might Also Like...
We're Gonna Get Sued!
Banned Around the World
Banned Around the World II
(warning: may contain spoilers)
Top Games Today in Miscellaneous
Logos with Stars
96 Bottles of Beer on the Wall
30 Facts that Start with 'H'
'Crossing the Delaware' Parodies
Top Games with Similar Tags
Strange UK Laws
SI Unit Match
Top User Games in Miscellaneous
Can you click the space bar 300 times in 1 minute?
5x5 in 90: Mixed Miscellaneous Minefield Blitz
☹☺ Emoji Face Minefield ☺☹
report this ad
mentally stimulating diversions
Quizzes for your site
Report a Problem
Copyright © 2007-2016 Sporcle, Inc.
Go to the Sporcle.com Mobile Site →