Tort Law Revision

Tort Law Quiz

Test yourself on the principles of tort law.

This quiz selects 50 random questions from the Ipsa Loquitur Tort Law question bank, so the quiz will be different each time you take it. To take all the questions on a particular subject, visit that subject's revision page.

1 / 50

What is the effect of establishing the defence of volenti non fit injuria?

The defendant is found not liable

The damages the defendant must pay are reduced

An injunction is unavailable to the claimant

2 / 50

What 3 things must the claimant establish to show a duty of care exists in novel cases?

That the damage is foreseeable

That there is existing authority that a duty applies in this kind of case

That there is proximity between the claimant and defendant

That the defendant assumed responsibility for the claimant's wellbeing

That imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable

That there is a close tie of love and affection between the parties

3 / 50

Do local authorities owe citizens a duty to warn them that they are in danger?

4 / 50

The standard of care in negligence lowered for learners, trainees or the inexperienced. True or false?

5 / 50

What two criteria must be established for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply in negligence?

The accident is not the kind of thing that normally happens without negligence

The defendant must be able to control or manage the situation

The harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant's activities

The defendant's employees are responsible for the harm

The defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would

6 / 50

When will the defendant be liable for the tort of false imprisonment as a primary defendant (not vicariously) where the detention was imposed by a third-party?

Where it was reasonably foreseeable that the third-party might act on the defendant's instructions

Where the defendant subjectively foresaw that the third-party might act on the defendant's instructions

Where the third-party was acting in the course of their employment for the defendant

Where the third-party acted as their agent, not exercising independent discretion

7 / 50

In industrial disease cases, what must the claimant show to establish factual causation?

That but for the defendant's breach, the claimant would not have suffered the harm

That the harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct

That the defendant materially contributed to the risk of harm

8 / 50

Do police owe a duty to protect the confidentiality of informants?

9 / 50

Do the police owe a duty of care to suspects or witnesses when investigating crime?

10 / 50

How does the occupier's duty change, if at all, if the visitor is a child?

They must take care not to lure children into dangerous areas

There is no change as they are entitled to assume in all cases that a child will be supervised

They must take account of the fact that children take less care

There is no change - the duty is the same whether the visitor is a child or an adult

11 / 50

What is the 'event' that the secondary victim must have been in close proximity to?

The moment of the breach (even if damage happens later)

The moment damage happens (even if the breach is later)

The case-law is inconsistent

12 / 50

What must a claimant show to prove that a statutory duty of care is applicable in their case?

That they suffered the kind of injury the duty was designed to protect and the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to fulfil their duty

That they are a member of the relevant limited class and suffered the kind of injury the duty was designed to prevent

That they are a member of the relevant limited class and the defendant failed to fulfil their statutory duty

That they are a member of the relevant limited class and the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to fulfil their duty

13 / 50

The defendant performed surgery on the claimant. They first informed the claimant about the nature and purpose of the surgery, but did not inform them of serious risks of injury involved. The claimant agreed to the surgery. The claimant then sues the defendant in the tort of battery, claiming that they did not give valid consent. Is the claimant correct?

14 / 50

How does a claimant establish factual causation in tort?

By showing that but for the breach, the loss would not have happened

By showing that the claimant lost a chance of avoiding the loss

By showing that there are no novus actus interveniens

By showing that the type of loss caused was a foreseeable result of the breach

15 / 50

What kind of tort is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

A type of negligence tort

Its own tort

A type of nuisance tort

16 / 50

Which five of these are exceptions to the rule that there is no liability in tort for omissions in English law?

The defendant had the power to prevent the loss

The defendant created the risk or made the harm worse

The defendant had a proximate relationship with the claimant

It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendant

The defendant adopted the risk by incompletely dealing with the danger

The defendant had control over the third-party who caused the harm

Where the loss is serious personal injury

The defendant assumed responsibility for the claimant's wellbeing

The defendant had control over a dangerous object or animal

17 / 50

What factors are relevant to whether the claimant waived liability for risk for the purposes of volenti non fit injuria? (Five answers)

The defendant was unaware the claimant was taking the risk

The claimant believed the risk would not manifest

The claimant incited or assisted in the creation of the risk

The claimant signed a written agreement acknowledging the risk

There was no legitimate reason for the claimant to take the risk

The risk was easily and conveniently avoidable

The risk was serious and obvious

The claimant was engaged in illegal activity at the time of the tort

Contributions of the claimant's employer in encouraging or discouraging the tort

18 / 50

Which factors indicate that Parliament did not intend for a particular statutory provision to give rise to a separate action for breach of statutory duty? (Four answers)

The statute provides a specific mechanism for enforcing the duty

The duty is regulatory in nature

The duty is a public and general duty rather than one imposed on specific types of private party

The duty is imposed on a specific, private defendant or a public authority only

The duty is merely a political aspiration

The statute does not state a specific way of enforcing the duty

The harm the provision is designed to protect against is particularly serious

19 / 50

There is a presumption that a breach of health and safety statutes give rise to a separate action for breach of statutory duty. True or false?

True

False

20 / 50

If the defendant's negligence injures the claimant, but the claimant would have suffered the same injury later on, can the claimant establish factual causation after the date of the second, inevitable injury?

Yes, but only if the later injury is caused by natural causes

Yes, but only if the later injury is caused by another tortious act

No

21 / 50

Diana is killed at work due to her employer's negligence. Her estate successfully sues in the tort of negligence. Can her estate claim the earnings that Diana has lost by no longer being alive?

22 / 50

When is the manner in which the harm was caused relevant to remoteness of damage?

Always

Never

When the claimant has a special vulnerability

When it takes the loss outside of the scope of the defendant's duty

When the claimant cannot prove the breach caused the loss

23 / 50

Do local authorities owe parents a duty of care when conducting investigations into allegations of child abuse?

24 / 50

If the claimant's chances of negotiating their way out of an economic loss have been reduced from 48% to 21% by the defendant's negligence, can they establish factual causation?

25 / 50

What must the defendant demonstrate to establish contributory negligence? (Two answers)

The claimant did not take reasonable care for their safety

The claimant acted in a very unreasonable manner

The claimant breached a duty of care owed to the defendant

The claimant’s lack of care contributed to the occurrence of the damage or its extent

A third party negligently contributed to the occurrence of the damage or its extent

26 / 50

Which two elements must be demonstrated to show that there is a 'close connection' between the tort and the defendant's relationship with the primary tortfeasor for the purposes of vicarious liability?

The defendant authorised the tort

That the tort was within the field of activities entrusted to the primary tortfeasor

The defendant had not instructed the primary tortfeasor to avoid the tort

The relationship created or increased the risk of that kind of tort

The tort was an unauthorised mode of fulfilling the defendant's instructions

27 / 50

Is it possible to exclude liability for personal injury or death under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Liability can be excluded for personal injury but not death

No

Yes

28 / 50

Complete this sentence. People engaging in consensual ‘horseplay’ are only negligent if...

their conduct is unreasonable

their conduct is against normal social standards

a reasonable person would foresee harm

their conduct is reckless or highly careless

29 / 50

Which of the following three scenarios cannot constitute an assault?

The defendant shouts at the claimant from across the street that he is coming to beat him up, but a passing car means that the claimant does not hear

The defendant tells the claimant, in person, "If you were not old, I would thump you"

The defendant telephones the claimant, remaining silent throughout

The defendant threatens the claimant with a gun, in circumstances where a reasonable person would know it was not loaded

The defendant tells the claimant, in person, "if you do not get out of my way, I will kill you"

The defendant telephones the claimant, breathing heavily and ominously down the line

30 / 50

Is a latent defect in a building or property pure economic loss?

Yes

Yes but only the defect is in one part of a complex structure which damages other parts

No

31 / 50

If a claimant acquires a cause of action but dies in the process or is subsequently killed, what happens to the cause of action?

The estate may sue, except for defamation or bereavement

The cause of action is extinguished

The estate may sue

32 / 50

If the defendant owes the claimant a duty to inform them as to the risks involved in an activity, what risks must the defendant tell the claimant of to fulfil the duty?

All significant and likely risks

All risks

All risks which a reasonable body of professionals would approve of telling

All material risks

All risks except those which might deter the patient from pursuing action in their best interests

33 / 50

According to the Bolam test, when will a professional defendant not be in breach of their duty in negligence?

If all reasonable bodies of professionals skilled in the same art would agree with the defendant's actions

If the defendant actions would would be accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals skilled in the same art

If others in the same profession would have done the same

If the defendant is a trainee

34 / 50

For the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment, in which of these scenarios is the claimant 'detained'?

Where the claimant is obstructed from leaving the area by a reasonable route for any period of time

Where the claimant is obstructed from leaving an area by a reasonable route for a long period of time

Where the claimant is completely obstructed from leaving an area by any route for a long period of time

Where the claimant is completely obstructed from leaving an area by any route for any period of time

35 / 50

What state of mind must the defendant possess before a claimant can establish the tort of false imprisonment?

Intention to detain or that detention was objectively foreseeable

Intention to detain

Intention to detain of subjective foresight of detention

36 / 50

When reducing damages for contributory negligence, can the court make a 100% reduction?

37 / 50

If a claimant succeeds in establishing a tort and is awarded contemptuous damages, the defendant must pay their costs. True or false?

38 / 50

If an act of the claimant, nature or a third party was the kind of thing the defendant's duty was supposed to guard against, can it break the chain of legal causation?

No

Yes

Yes but only if it was highly unforeseeable

39 / 50

Can a person sue in private nuisance if they do not have a property interest in affected land?

40 / 50

What 4 conditions must be met before the defendant is deemed to have 'assumed responsibility' for the claimant's pure economic loss (and therefore owe the claimant a duty of care)?

The claimant had a special vulnerability

A 'special relationship' exists between the parties

The economic loss is a consequence of property damage or physical harm

The claimant relied on the defendant's advice or actions

The claimant shared a close tie of love and affection with the defendant

The defendant has not disclaimed responsibility

The defendant knew that the claimant would rely on them without verification

41 / 50

For the purposes of the defences to the Consumer Protection Act 1987, when is 'the relevant time'? (Three answers)

When the product was last supplied by a producer, own-brander or importer other than a secondary defendant

When the product was imported

When the product was manufactured

If the product is electricity, when it was generated

When the defect became part of the product

When the product was supplied by the defendant

42 / 50

When will an injunction be refused despite the relevant test being met? (Three answers)

Where the obligation or wrong involves the use of land

If the claimant acquiesced in the wrong

Where the defendant would suffer undue loss if they succeeded at trial

Where the claimant is unlikely to win the case

If the claimant acted inequitably

Where granting the injunction would amount to indirect specific performance

43 / 50

To establish the tort of intentional infliction of harm, what does the defendant have to intend to inflict on the claimant?

Any emotional distress

A recognised psychiatric illness

Severe or significant distress

44 / 50

What must the claimant show to establish that negligently inflicted harm is sufficiently non-remote?

That the defendant's breach caused the loss

That the extent of the harm caused was reasonably foreseeable

That the loss was of a type which is reasonably foreseeable

That the way in which the harm was caused was reasonably foreseeable

45 / 50

When is a product 'standard' for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

When it is built and performs differently from other products in the same series

When it is built and performs the way the maker intended

46 / 50

The police may normally rely on their powers of arrest and stops as a defence to a personal interference tort claim. When is this not the case?

Where they have used their powers in an unlawful manner

With respect to the tort of assault

Where their actions are completely outside the lawful scope of the power

There are no circumstances in which these powers are not a defence

47 / 50

What kinds of damage cannot be recovered using a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Consequential economic loss

Personal injury and death

Private property damage and loss

Damage to the defective product or its components

Property damage and loss valued at less that £275

Non-private property damage and loss

48 / 50

If a risk arising from land is obvious, what must the occupier do to warn visitors to discharge their duty of care under the Occupiers Liability act 1957?

They must explain the location of the danger only

They must explain the nature and location of the danger

They must explain how to avoid the danger

Nothing, there is no need to warn against obvious risks

49 / 50

If the defendant touches the claimant accidentally but refuses to end the contact when asked, has the defendant committed the tort of battery?

50 / 50

What must be shown to establish public nuisance?

The activity causes physical harm to multiple claimants' land

The activity materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of the public or obstructs common rights

That over one hundred individuals have made a complaint about the activity to the attorney general, who deems it unreasonable

That the actions of the defendant are extremely unreasonable, given the nature of the locality

Your score is

Tort Law Revision

TORT LAW

Negligence

Statutory Liability

Land Torts

Personal Torts

General Defences

Other

Like this: