During an argument in a crowded car park, a driver angrily reverses his car too quickly intending to frighten a pedestrian, but not to hit her. He misjudges the distance and injures her. The pedestrian sues in the Tort of Negligence.
Which statement best reflects the correct legal position?

Question

During an argument in a crowded car park, a driver angrily reverses his car too quickly intending to frighten a pedestrian, but not to hit her. He misjudges the distance and injures her. The pedestrian sues in the Tort of Negligence.  
 Which statement best reflects the correct legal position?

Answer

The driver cannot be negligent because intention and negligence are mutually exclusive mental states.

Answer

There can be no negligence because the driver acted intentionally rather than carelessly.

Answer

The driver is liable in negligence because they intentionally endangered the pedestrian.

Answer

The driver is liable in negligence only if he intended to cause that specific injury.

Answer

The driver's motive to "teach her a lesson" prevents liability in negligence but would be relevant to a criminal charge.

Crowdly

During an argument in a crowded car park, a driver angrily reverses his car too ...

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