In Dunnage v Randall (2016) the defendant set himself alight during a psychotic episode, seriously injuring the claimant who tried to help him.
Which statement best explains the outcome of the case?

Question

In  Dunnage v Randall  (2016) the defendant set himself alight during a psychotic episode, seriously injuring the claimant who tried to help him. 
 Which statement best explains the outcome of the case?

Answer

The defendant was liable because the reasonable person does not set themselves alight.

Answer

The defendant was not liable because his actions were involuntary and therefore not negligent.

Answer

The defendant was liable because he directly caused physical harm to the claimant by his positive act.

Answer

The defendant was not liable because he owed no duty of care while acting under a delusion.

Answer

The defendant was not liable because the harm was caused by the claimant's own intervention.

Crowdly

In Dunnage v Randall (2016) the defendant set himself alight during a psychoti...

Want instant access to all verified answers on moodle.kent.ac.uk?