Miscellaneous Quiz / Law 2 v2

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Law 2 v2?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Also try: Fast Food Slogans
Challenge
Share
Tweet
Embed
Score 0/83 Timer 10:00
DetailsCaseDate
Strict Liability
Mens rea is subjective. Not liable for honest misinformation.
The application of force during a consensual sporting game is not unlawful.
No factual causation as the men would have died whether the hospital had been negligent or not. The operating cause of their death was the poison, not their hospital treatment.
Specific intent is required to convict s.18 OAPA 1861.
Strict Liability
Egg-shell skull rule. You must take the victim as you find them.
The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a p
When there is more than one accepted method of doing something, either can fulfill a duty of care.
The court has the perogative to over-rule the generally accepted conduct of a profession.
A lower standard of care is owed when the risk of something happening is very low. See Haley.
No physical proximity as C was in a safe place when the negligence occurred and elected to move after the accident.
Damage from the cold was forseeable and so it is irrelevant that this damage took a particularly unusual form, D was still liable. See Hughes.
A series of minor injuries can amount to a grevious injury.
Held as assault even though it was not in person. See Smith v Woking, Ireland, Constanza, Mead.
Three-part test for duty of care.
'Physical or psychological injury.'
D is still the operating and substantial cause of V's death. Therefore no NAI.
Continuing mens rea and coincidence of actus reus.
Held as assault even though it was not in person. See Smith v Woking, Ireland, Burstow, Mead.
While the particular outcome was not forseeable, that type of harm was. Therefore no NAI.
Recklessness.
A lower standard of care is owed when there are clear social benefits of taking a risk.
GBH can take the form of diseases. (Biological GBH).
The neighbour principle.
It was not known that such a reaction could occur, and so the damage was too remote and D was not liable.
Indirect force.
Liable for omissions when in a position of public responsibility.
DetailsCaseDate
Continuing actus reus and coincidence of mens rea.
There are multiple factual causes in special circumstances on policy grounds.
Reasonable forseeability test. Learn these four steps.
Strict Liability
Parents have a duty to look after their children. (See Shepherd)
The size of the risk was quite high in this case as about 1 in 500 people are partially sighted or blind. Therefore, a higher standard of care was owed. See Bolton.
Indirect force. Held as a battery to the baby.
Not liable for involuntary acts.
Damage in general was forseeable so it is irrelevant that the damage took a particularly unusuall form, D was still liable. See Bradford.
Held as assault even though it was not in person. See Smith v Woking, Burstow, Constanza, Mead.
Definition of a wound. Internal bleeding is not a breaking in the continuation of both layers of the skin and so not a wound.
Medical treatment is palpably wrong and so constitutes a novus actus interveniens.
It is reasonably forseeable that someone in C's position would have been harmed by D's negligence.
Transferred malice from C to V.
A lower standard of care is owed when D has taken all reasonable precautions.
Continuation of mens rea.
Held as assault even though there was no actual threat.
Strict Liability
A higher culpability (blameworthiness) is required to be liable for omissions, than acts.
D is still the operating and substantial cause of V's death. Therefore no NAI.
Oblique intent.
There is proximity as C's family have a relationship with C.
Held as assault. See Smith v Woking, Ireland, Burstow, Constanza.
Liable for failing to minimise the negative consequences of your own harmful acts.
Transferred malice from C to V.
'Making the decision to bring about, so long as it lies within D's powers, the consequence of a criminal action.
It was fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police service. See Orange.
Learners are expected to be of the competency of a fully trained person in that skill.
DetailsCaseDate
It was not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police service. See MPC v Reeves.
Factual causation. But for D's actions, V would not have died.
C had a special characteristic meaning the standard of care owed to him was higher.
Malice can only be transferred for the same offence. It cannot be transferred between two different offences such as ABH and destruction of property.
Liable for omissions when contractually obligated to act.
D liable as V's actions were a reasonable response to D's actions. Therefore no NAI. See Williams.
The reasonable man cannot be responsible for things that no one knew could happen.
'Intention or recklessness to inflict a battery, and/or some bodily harm' 'Maliciously' implies intention or recklessness.'
Parents only have a duty to look after their children up to the age of 18.
Strict Liability
D is still the operating and substantial cause of V's death. Therefore no NAI.
Harm is not only limited to skin, flesh and bones, and can include hair.
Held as assault even though no words were spoken. See Ireland, Burstow, Constanza, Mead.
Take the victim as you find him. D was still liable even though C had an unusually high sensitivity.
It was not reasonably forseeable for D for vandals to set fire to the property. It was a new and intervening act.
Subjectively unforseeable events cannot constitute Cunningham recklessness.
Liable for omissions when you have voluntarily assumed responsibility to act.
Continuing mens rea and coincidence of actus reus.
Held as battery, even though there was no actual touching.
'Intention or recklessness to apply unlawful force to another.'
Damage from the oil was forseeable, but damage from the fire was too remote, meaning D was not liable for this damage.
C had a special characteristic meaning the standard of care owed to him was higher.
A lower standard of care is owed when there are clear social benefits of taking a risk.
The industry standard is always expected from D. Here, he was expected to be of the competency of the reasonable professional carpenter.
No factual causation. But for D's actions, V would still have died.
D not liable as V's actions were not a reasonable response to D's actions. Therefore NAI. See Roberts.
Oblique intent.

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Sign Up with Email
OR
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments

Extras

Top Quizzes Today


Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.