- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
in negligence, to prove that damage arose from a breach of duty, it must be shown that the breach caused the damage and:
a. the type of injury reasonably foreseen
b. the particular injury was reasonabley foreseen
c. the extent of injury was reasonably foreseen
d. botht eh extent and the type of injury was reasonably foreseenthe correct answer is A.
i answered B.
can anyone explain this please
I’ve just been reading, as a result of your post, an interesting post on the Internet : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence
Immerse yourself in that and then, if you still have a problem, post again.
What I will say is that the question that you have posted is difficult to interpret ie difficult to know exactly the import of the words used.
But you should find the article interesting – at least, I did
this was a kaplan question and i needed a straighforward answer not reading material.
i wont be posting in f4 forrum anymore
Sorry Mansoor for missing the point of your post – this is meant to be a site to help your education.
However, you want an explanation for answer (a) or a reason why answer (b) is incorrect?
If the necessary proof were to establish the particular injury to be foreseeable, the liability of the breacher would be unnecessarily restricted whereas with the necessity left open to include the more general requirement of the “type of injury” that will open the gates of responsibility much wider than the restricted opening for answer (b)
Does the Kaplan text not explain all this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.