Chapter 5: Negligence

Gerald, a construction site worker, drives to work. On the way (and as a result of his careless driving), he injures one of the self-employed workers, Franz, who is also on his way to work at the site. You are asked to advise Gerald as to whether he may be liable in crime, in tort to Franz and/or in contract to Franz. Which of the following is correct?

• Crime and tort only

• Crime and contract only

• Tort and contract only

• Crime, tort and contract

Where A is in breach of a duty of care that they owe to B and B suffers loss, A will be liable in negligence to compensate B for all the loss and damage they suffer.

• TRUE

• FALSE

Tort is part of the law of negligence.

• TRUE

• FALSE

A trainee doctor, Zena, was treating a patient, Lily, for a medical condition. In January 200X, Zena changed her drug treatment but Lily became even more sick. Lily sued Zena, alleging that she was in breach of her duty of care in failing to introduce the new treatment at a much slower rate, in accordance with guidelines published by the British Medical Association (BMA) in July 200X.

Is the standard of care owed by Zena that of a reasonable trainee doctor?

• TRUE

• FALSE

A trainee doctor, Zena, was treating a patient, Lily, for a medical condition. In January 200X, Zena changed her drug treatment but Lily became even more sick. Lily sued Zena, alleging that she was in breach of her duty of care in failing to introduce the new treatment at a much slower rate, in accordance with guidelines published by the British Medical Association (BMA) in July 200X.

Will Zena be judged by the standards of the BMA's published guidelines?

• TRUE

• FALSE

Where a claimant is particularly vulnerable, the standard of care owed by the defendant is correspondingly higher, where the defendant is aware of the special vulnerability.

• TRUE

• FALSE

Emergency circumstances prevailing at the time an act or omission occurred are taken into account when determining whether the defendant was in breach of their duty of care.

• TRUE

• FALSE

Ally owed Bella a duty of care. She made a negligent misstatement on which Bella reasonably relied. In consequence she suffered the following types of loss:

(1)    personal injury

(2)    pure financial loss

(3)    loss of earnings

(4)    damage to property

Which of these is or are recoverable?

• None of them

• All of them

• (1), (2) and (3) only

• (1) and (4) only

Harold decided to take over Bloggs Ltd solely on the grounds that he wished to acquire the use of certain property owned by Bloggs Ltd. Harold's bid price reflected his desire to take over the company but also took into account the profitability of Bloggs Ltd as set out in its most recent accounts. It later turned out that the accounts of Bloggs Ltd had been prepared negligently and should have shown a smaller profit than they did. Since there is no disclaimer of liability in the accounts, Harold sues the accountants who prepared them. Will Harold succeed in an action for negligence against the firm?

• Yes, the firm owed him a duty of care because it knew that Bloggs Ltd was considering the possibility of seeking outside finance.

• Yes, the firm owed a duty of care to every person who might be expected to see the accounts.

• No, the firm owed no duty of care to a potential takeover bidder.

• No, Harold's loss was not caused by the accounts since he was going to take over the company in any event.

Mohammed was a shareholder in Blip plc. When he read the annual accounts, he sold his entire shareholding because the accounts revealed a loss and the projections were not favourable. It later became clear that the accounts had been prepared negligently and, in fact, the company was in an extremely healthy financial state. Mohammed sued the firm of accountants that prepared the accounts, Dodi & Co. There was no disclaimer of liability in the accounts. Is Dodi & Co liable to Mohammed in negligence?

• Dodi & Co is liable because it owed a duty of care to all existing shareholders.

• Dodi & Co is liable because Mohammed's losses were incurred as a direct result of reading the accounts.

• Dodi & Co is not liable because it did not owe a duty of care to existing shareholders considering their investments.

• Dodi & Co is not liable because investors in the stock market do so at their own risk.