top of page
CELE SQE1 模拟练习

Examination Timing: 00H01M04S

John Williams, a pedestrian, is injured when a car driven by Emily Davis mounts the pavement and hits him. John sustains severe injuries and sues Emily for negligence. Emily argues that she suffered a sudden and unexpected heart attack, which caused her to lose control of the vehicle. 

Which one of the following statements is correct?

< 上一页

You have chosen the incorrect answer.
Your selected option: C

下一页 >

John must prove that Emily owed him a duty of care and breached that duty. In negligence claims, the claimant must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the harm suffered. Option A is incorrect because liability is not automatic; it requires proof of negligence. Option B is incorrect as necessity is not a relevant defence in this context. Option C is incorrect as Emily’s defence would more appropriately be framed as an argument about foreseeability and causation rather than automatic absolution of liability. Option E is incorrect as contributory negligence would require evidence that John’s actions contributed to his injuries, which is unlikely in this scenario.

Key Point: This question focuses on the elements of negligence, specifically duty of care and breach, and the necessity for the claimant to prove these elements to establish liability.



学习 CELE SQE.png
来自 Lucky Lion 的 CELE SQE PASS 祝福_

Thank you for your question. Let's go through the options together.

In a negligence claim, John (the claimant) must prove three key elements:
1. Emily (the defendant) owed him a duty of care.
2. Emily breached that duty of care.
3. That breach caused the harm suffered by John.

Now, let's reconsider the specific options given in the context of the question:

- **Option A:** Suggests liability is automatic, which is incorrect. Liability in negligence is not automatic but requires proof of the elements mentioned above.
- **Option B:** Discusses necessity, which is not relevant here since we're addressing negligence rather than a situation necessitating an immediate counteraction.
- **Option C:** Considers Emily's defense of having an unexpected heart attack. While Emily's argument might mitigate her liability depending on the foreseeability of her medical condition, it doesn't automatically absolve her but challenges foreseeability and causation.
- **Option D:** Is what I will explain as likely the correct statement.
- **Option E:** Talks about contributory negligence, which is not applicable unless there is evidence John contributed to his own harm, which isn't indicated here.

Given your initial answer "C" and the explanation above, the correct answer should be focusing on the causation and foreseeability aspect that Emily’s defense raises. Emily’s sudden heart attack could indeed be a factor under foreseeability and causation, potentially challenging the breach component.

So, reconsidering with all this context provided, it seems that:

- **Option D:** Correctly states the primary requirements for John to establish under negligence are the duty of care, breach, and causation of harm.

Unfortunately, without seeing the exact options, it's difficult to confirm entirely, but primarily, John must prove the duty and breach and that this breach caused his injuries. Emily's defense centers on whether her medical condition was foreseeable and whether this absolves or mitigates her liability.

Please revisit the options with this framework and confirm if **Option D** aligns with this explanation. If there are further queries, please do not hesitate to ask! Always here to support your learning journey.

bottom of page