Mitch and his family were holidaying in a remote rural area. Mitch wanted to make this holiday experience very memorable for his family, so he organised with a tour operator 'Family Friendly Adventures' (FFA) to take his family on an overnight desert adventure. Promised activities on this adventure included bushwalking, abseiling, camping and river fishing. Mitch fell and suffered severe injuries when the rope supporting him snapped while abseiling. An investigation later found the ropes were not properly maintained by FFA and this caused him to fall. Mary (Mitch's wife) suffered depression and anxiety after seeing Mitch fall and suffer the injuries. What test is relevant in establishing whether the FFA owes a duty of care to Mitch? O a. Weighting test O b. Peer professional opinion O c. But for test O d. Neighbour test Which case law is similar in facts to this case study? O a. Donoghue v Stevenson O b. Chapel v Hart O c. None of the options O d. Jaensch v Coffey