Practice Questions for NEBOSH Examinations – Management ANSWERS Paper #1 The answers given in these papers are in bullet form‚ you MUST pay attention to the key ACTION VERBS in order to give full answers. I take no responsibility for answers given in exams in the style portrayed in the PRACTICE questions and answers written by myself. Question 1 (i) Outline which factors to consider while carrying out the risk assessment Factors to identify: Activities being undertaken Hazards
Free Occupational safety and health Law Risk
neighbor. Neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by ma act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question: Donoghue v Stevenson. Thus‚ the damages occurred must be reasonably foreseeable. In this case‚ MHRC and James are neighbors since they are service provider and customer. Service providers including professional service providers generally owe a duty to take reasonable
Premium Duty of care Reasonable person Tort
```` Samantha Macdonald Unit 12 : principles for implementing duty of care in health‚ social care‚ or children’s and young people’s settings Duty of Care Lord Atkin defined the duty of care when he gave judgement in the case of Donoghue v Stephenson (House of Lords 1932 relating to a case of a “snail” found in ginger beer sold to a customer” ). He said that: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who‚
Premium Duty of care Tort Risk
Duty of Care (NO 3RD PARTY) Law/App: The tort of negligent misstatement was effectively established since the case of (Hedley Byrne v Heller). Law stipulates that there must be a special relationship (an extension of “neighbour principle” established in Donoghue v Stevenson) for between P and D for a DOC to rise in the tort of negligent misstatement: (L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council): * The subject matter was/was not serious because… * (Constructive knowledge) The P does / doesn’t know
Premium Negligence Tort Duty of care
gives him a wrong instructions about how to fix an engine‚ then the instructor of TAFE ought to have foreseen that there is a real risk of the likelihood of injury to John taking account of all the circumstances of the particular case‚ such as Donoghue v Stevenson case‚ in this case‚ the plaintiff found a snail in the bottle‚ gives the plaintiff mental and physical harm both‚ lord Atkin said the plaintiff has no chance of seeing the snail in the bottle because it was a brown opaque bottle‚ the evidence
Premium Tort Negligence Duty of care
foresight of the defendant. However due to the conflict between this proposition and the neighbour principle laid down in Donohue v Stevenson and the general reluctance of the courts to make the defendants liability limitless‚ this proposition was soon rejected. The current test of remoteness used by the courts was developed in the case‚ Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) No 1. In this case‚ Lord Simons said that it was the foresight of the reasonable
Premium Tort law Duty of care Plaintiff
Case – British Railways board Vs Herrington Relevance - Trespasser duty of care - Common humanity - Occupiers liability act 1984 Facts - Railway line operated by BRB ran through property open to public - Fences were in poor repair - 1965 children seen on line - Child severely injured when he stepped on line after passing through broken fence - Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence Ruling - House of lords held over trespassers‚ a duty to take steps as common humanity to avert
Premium Tort law Tort Law
dictates the circumstances in which a person will be liable to another in negligence. Generally‚ a person owes a duty of care to those around him‚ which is a duty to act reasonably. The test for establishing a duty of care was formulated in the case Donoghue v Stephenson‚ where the plaintiff became ill after drinking lemonade manufactured by the defendant. The issue was that there was a duty in tort to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
the case of Donohue v Stevenson[1]‚ Donohue won the case. The ratio decidendi in the case was that the liability of negligence did not depend on the contractual relationship and that Stevenson owed the duty of care to Donohue as a manufacturer‚ not to cause foreseeable injuries to the users of the products. As there was an owed duty‚ Stevenson failed to practice the appropriate standard of care and in turn‚ the negligent act had caused the injuries to Donohue. Therefore‚ Stevenson loss the case.
Premium Contract Contract law Tort
1.1 Explain what is meant to have a duty of care in own work role Duty of care is a requirement to exercise a reasonable degree of attention and caution to avoid negligence which would lead to harm to others. Staff to be vigilance and attention keeps individuals safe as they develop: A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard and reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeable harm others. By including‚ daily cleaning
Premium Pleading Tort Complaint