Courts generally defer to any responsible professional opinion, so long as it's reasoning is coherent, and the patient was informed of material risks. 

Bolam applies to both treatment and risk disclosure, except where the risk is novel or not yet studied. 

Courts will only depart from professional opinion if it is both illogical and inconsistent with national guidelines. 

Where expert views conflict, courts prefer the majority unless the doctor reasonably thought non-disclosure was in the patient's best interests. 

Courts may refuse to follow a professional view if its reasoning is not logically defensible, or if the patient was not adequately informed about material risks and alternatives. 

No, because psychiatric harm is not actionable unless accompanied by physical injury. 

Yes, because psychiatric harm was foreseeable in someone of ordinary fortitude. 

Yes, because he had a close tie of love and affection with the victim. 

No, because Dan was not in physical danger and is not a primary victim. 

Yes, because psychiatric harm is a form of physical injury. 

The council is liable because it negligently failed to exercise a statutory power designed to protect road users. 

The Council is not liable because decisions about how to allocate public funds are protected by statutory immunity. 

The Council is not liable because its decision did not make the situation worse. 

The council is liable because it owed a general common law duty to make roads as safe as reasonably possible. 

The Council is liable because it could reasonably foresee that its inaction might lead to accidents. 

The speed limit is a policy guideline with no bearing on negligence. 

The 30 mph limit fixes the standard of care in law, so compliance prevents the finding of negligence. 

The speed limit and reasonable person test are both standards since each depends on context. 

Both the speed limit and the reasonable person test are rules because each tells the driver what to do. 

The speed limit is a rule, but negligence law applies a broader standard that may require slower driving. 

The harm is too minor to count as legal damage. 

The cafe's insurer would not cover her loss. 

Ella lacks a legally recognised cause of action. 

The cafe owes duties only to paying customers. 

Ella has no contract with the cafe. 

Harm is what the claimant feels; damage is the defendant's intention. 

Damage refers only to physical injury. 

Harm and damage are interchangeable legal terms. 

Harm is a factual loss; damage is harm that the law recognises as actionable.

Harm refers to moral wrongdoing; damage means financial loss.

The doctor owed a duty to avoid foreseeable harm of this kind under Paul v. Wolverhampton NHS Trust. 

The doctor's omission is judged by the Montgomery test because it concerned a failure to warn of material risks. 

The decision about which treatments to discuss falls within professional judgement and is assessed under Bolam/Bolitho.

The doctor's conduct is governed by Bolam throughout since Montgomery applies only in hospitals, not general practice. 

The doctor is negligent because Montgomery requires disclosure of all possible treatments, however remote. 

Employers' liability and motor claims. 

Public liability and motor claims

Public liability and employer's liability. 

Clinical negligence and public liability. 

Employers' liability and clinical negligence. 

The senior officer orders the sprinkler system to be turned off. 

Officers pause to assess the situation, and the fire spreads. 

Firefighters redirect the hose from the commercial building to a nearby school (not on fire) as a precautionary measure. 

The water hose is connected incorrectly. 

The crew withdraw when the structure looks unsafe. 

A scientific question about physical causation.

All of the above. 

A moral question about the defendant’s character.

A statistical question about probability and risk.

A normative question about the attribution of responsibility.