MENU
Which ONE of the following is NOT an essential element of the tort of negligence?
Suggested Answer: A, B, C
Get Premium CIMAPRA17-BA4-1 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
47 comments · newest first
TE
Tequila
11 months ago
Duty of care and breach are must-haves, for sure.
LE
Lettie
11 months ago
I thought intention was key in negligence cases.
AR
Ardella
12 months ago
Wait, so intention isn’t needed? That’s surprising!
BA
Barrie
12 months ago
Totally agree, C is the odd one out!
SE
Selma
1 year ago
C is definitely not essential.
WH
Whitney
1 year ago
I’m a bit confused, though. I thought all elements had to be proven, but maybe intent isn't necessary?
GE
Geoffrey
1 year ago
I practiced a similar question where intent was a key factor, and it wasn't part of negligence, so I’m leaning towards C as well.
ER
Erasmo
1 year ago
I think option C is the one that doesn't fit because negligence doesn't require intent, just a breach of duty.
BR
Brett
1 year ago
I remember that the essential elements of negligence include duty of care and breach, but I'm not sure about the intent part.
JE
Jess
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got a handle on this. The applet is checking the MAC address table and generating some kind of event based on what it finds. I just need to determine the exact behavior.
JE
Jeannetta
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question is asking about a lot of specific details that I'm not entirely confident I have a firm grasp on. I'll need to review my notes and examples to make sure I understand the right approach.
LI
Linn
1 year ago
The workflows are probably in the FND data, since that's where the application configuration information is stored.
HA
Harrison
1 year ago
This seems like a pretty straightforward network optimization question. I'd go with option C - configuring QoS on the network switches to alleviate the bottlenecks.
CA
Casie
1 year ago
Wait, so the defendant doesn't Casien need to intend to break the duty of care? That's like saying I can trip and fall on someone and still be liable. Crazy!
VA
Vanda
1 year ago
I'd say the answer is C too. Intentionally causing harm is not a requirement for negligence - the defendant just needs to have failed in their duty of care, regardless of their intentions.
FR
Francisca
1 year ago
C) The defendant must have intended to cause physical harm or financial loss to the claimant in breaking the duty of care
DE
Devorah
1 year ago
B) The defendant must have acted in breach of the duty of care
JA
Jame
1 year ago
A) The defendant must owe the claimant a legal duty of care
GA
Gayla
1 year ago
Haha, this is like a legal version of 'Which one of these things is not like the other?' I'm gonna go with C, it seems the most out of place.
CH
Cheryl
1 year ago
Exactly, it's more about the actions and consequences rather than the intent.
SH
Shay
1 year ago
Yeah, that's right. Negligence is about failing to meet the standard of care, not necessarily intending harm.
BO
Boris
1 year ago
C) is correct. It's not necessary for the defendant to have intended to cause harm.
LA
Lavina
1 year ago
D) The defendant must have caused some damage, loss or injury to the claimant by breaking the duty of care
DE
Deonna
1 year ago
C) The defendant must have intended to cause physical harm or financial loss to the claimant in breaking the duty of care
GI
Gilma
1 year ago
B) The defendant must have acted in breach of the duty of care
CR
Crissy
1 year ago
A) The defendant must owe the claimant a legal duty of care
AL
Alexis
2 years ago
Hmm, I was thinking it might be D, since the defendant doesn't necessarily need to have caused actual damage, just that they breached their duty. But I could be wrong...
JO
Joaquin
1 year ago
No problem, happy to help!
AL
Alline
1 year ago
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!
GL
Gladys
1 year ago
I think you're right, it's actually C that is NOT an essential element. The defendant doesn't need to have intended to cause harm, just that they breached their duty.
TA
Talia
1 year ago
D) The defendant must have caused some damage, loss or injury to the claimant by breaking the duty of care
DO
Dorethea
1 year ago
C) The defendant must have intended to cause physical harm or financial loss to the claimant in breaking the duty of care
AR
Aretha
1 year ago
B) The defendant must have acted in breach of the duty of care
AM
Ammie
1 year ago
A) The defendant must owe the claimant a legal duty of care
BR
Brianne
1 year ago
No problem, happy to help clarify things!
DE
Denae
1 year ago
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. It makes sense now.
AL
Altha
1 year ago
I think you're right, it's actually C that is not an essential element. The defendant doesn't need to have intended to cause harm, just that they breached their duty.
YA
Yasuko
1 year ago
D) The defendant must have caused some damage, loss or injury to the claimant by breaking the duty of care
LA
Laurel
1 year ago
C) The defendant must have intended to cause physical harm or financial loss to the claimant in breaking the duty of care
CA
Carmelina
1 year ago
B) The defendant must have acted in breach of the duty of care
YU
Yuonne
1 year ago
A) The defendant must owe the claimant a legal duty of care
FR
Fredric
2 years ago
Well, this is a tricky one. I'm pretty sure the answer is C - the defendant doesn't need to have intended to cause harm, just that they breached their duty of care.
GA
Gayla
1 year ago
Yes, the defendant just needs to have breached their duty of care, they don't have to intend to cause harm.
CH
Chun
1 year ago
I think you're right, C is not an essential element of negligence.
SO
Son
2 years ago
But doesn't negligence require the defendant to have caused some damage to the claimant? That's why I think D is the correct answer.
AN
Andra
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is D.
SO
Son
2 years ago
I think the answer is C.