A Level Law Practice Exam

In Roberts, why did D remain liable for the victim's injuries?

1. The victim acted in a daft manner

2. The victim’s reaction was not foreseeable

3. The victim acted reasonably under the circumstances

4. The chain of causation was broken

The correct answer is: The victim acted reasonably under the circumstances

In the case of Roberts, the key factor contributing to D's liability for the victim's injuries is the understanding of how the victim's response to the situation is assessed in light of foreseeability and reasonableness. While the victim’s reaction may have been unexpected, it is important to note that a reasonable person might act in a way to escape a threatening scenario. In Roberts, the court determined that the victim's actions, although they resulted in injury, were reasonable under the circumstances where she was attempting to get away from a potentially harmful situation. This reasoning follows the principle that a defendant is held accountable for the natural consequences of their actions if those actions create a situation where a reasonable response might lead to harm, even if the specific outcome was not precisely predictable. Therefore, the victim's decision to flee, which resulted in the injuries, was considered a foreseeable consequence of D's conduct, as it was a reasonable reaction to a threatening circumstance. While the other options may consider different aspects of the incident, such as the nature of the victim's actions or the chain of causation, they do not capture the essential principle of reasonableness that the courts emphasize in determining liability. The key takeaway is that a victim's reasonable actions in response to