2026 AQA A LEVEL LAW PAPER 2
COMPREHENSIVE TEST BANK COMPLETE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PRACTICE
SOLUTION VERIFIED
◉ (Neg) The 3 stages of negligence? Answer: Duty of Care, Breach
of Duty, Damage
◉ (Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson Answer: 'Neigbour principle' (Lord
Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone closely affected by your actions or
omissions"
◉ (Neg) Robinson 2018 Answer: Caparo test need only be used in
novel situations and provided established DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
◉ (Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990 Answer: Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
,◉ (Neg) Kent v Griffiths Answer: The damage/ loss to C reasonably
foreseeable - D's actions judged by the standards of a reasonable
person (objective test)
◉ (Neg) Bourhill v Young Answer: Relationship of close proximity
between C & D - proximity of time & space, and legal relationship
◉ (Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson Answer: It is fair just &
reasonable to impose a DOC (public issue, floodgate argument) - if an
omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it is (Robinson)
◉ (Neg) Duty of Care Answer: C must prove D owed them a DOC
◉ (Neg) Breach of Duty Answer: Used to establish D's liability for
his actions/ omissions and the SOC they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary
person in that same situation with similar experience"
◉ (Neg) Well v Cooper Answer: If D is an ordinary person, then they
will not be expexted to act like a professional
◉ (Neg) Bolam Answer: > Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill
then judged to standards of other reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's
actions, the judge will examine this and may deem it illogical so D
still liable
, ◉ (Neg) Bolam - OIR Answer: > Wilsher v Essex - no account taken
for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
◉ (Neg) Nettleship v Weston Answer: If D is inexperience/ learner
then judged by standards of experienced - standard never lowered
◉ (Neg) Mullins v Richards Answer: Children judged to standard of a
similar age
◉ (Neg) Disabled Answer: D's judged to standard appropriate to the
reasonable person with the same disability
◉ (Neg) Risk Factors Answer: Increase or decrease SOC required by
D
◉ (Neg) Roe v Minister of Health Answer: Where risks known about
at time of injury? D only liable for risks within 'reasonable
contemplation'
◉ (Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board Answer:
Size of risk and probability of harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
COMPREHENSIVE TEST BANK COMPLETE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PRACTICE
SOLUTION VERIFIED
◉ (Neg) The 3 stages of negligence? Answer: Duty of Care, Breach
of Duty, Damage
◉ (Neg) Donoghue v Stevenson Answer: 'Neigbour principle' (Lord
Atkin) - "your neighbour is anyone closely affected by your actions or
omissions"
◉ (Neg) Robinson 2018 Answer: Caparo test need only be used in
novel situations and provided established DOC
> doctor to patient - Bolam
> driver to road user - Nettleship v Weston
> manufacturers to consumers - Donoghue v Stevenson
> solicitor to client - Arthur JS Hall v Simons
◉ (Neg) Caparo v Dickman 1990 Answer: Caparo 3 stage test
> was damage/ loss to C reasonably foreseeable?
> was there a relationship of close proximity between C & D?
> is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a DOC?
,◉ (Neg) Kent v Griffiths Answer: The damage/ loss to C reasonably
foreseeable - D's actions judged by the standards of a reasonable
person (objective test)
◉ (Neg) Bourhill v Young Answer: Relationship of close proximity
between C & D - proximity of time & space, and legal relationship
◉ (Neg) Hill v CC of W Yorkshire/ Robinson Answer: It is fair just &
reasonable to impose a DOC (public issue, floodgate argument) - if an
omission then NOT fair (Hill), but it its a positive act it is (Robinson)
◉ (Neg) Duty of Care Answer: C must prove D owed them a DOC
◉ (Neg) Breach of Duty Answer: Used to establish D's liability for
his actions/ omissions and the SOC they owe to C
Blyth v Birmingham - D is "judged by the standards of an ordinary
person in that same situation with similar experience"
◉ (Neg) Well v Cooper Answer: If D is an ordinary person, then they
will not be expexted to act like a professional
◉ (Neg) Bolam Answer: > Bolam - if D is an expert/ possesses a skill
then judged to standards of other reasonably competent professionals
> Bolithio - if there is a body of professional opinion supporting D's
actions, the judge will examine this and may deem it illogical so D
still liable
, ◉ (Neg) Bolam - OIR Answer: > Wilsher v Essex - no account taken
for D's actual experience
> Montgomery - doctor must make patient aware of material risks
> Chester v Afshar - doctor must inform of side effects
◉ (Neg) Nettleship v Weston Answer: If D is inexperience/ learner
then judged by standards of experienced - standard never lowered
◉ (Neg) Mullins v Richards Answer: Children judged to standard of a
similar age
◉ (Neg) Disabled Answer: D's judged to standard appropriate to the
reasonable person with the same disability
◉ (Neg) Risk Factors Answer: Increase or decrease SOC required by
D
◉ (Neg) Roe v Minister of Health Answer: Where risks known about
at time of injury? D only liable for risks within 'reasonable
contemplation'
◉ (Neg) Bolton v Stone/ Hayley v London Electricity Board Answer:
Size of risk and probability of harm caused
> small risk = less precautions (Bolton)
> high risk = more precautions (Hayley)
