Tort Law Revision TORT LAW Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation Remoteness Statutory Liability Occupier’s Liability Defective Products Breach of Statutory Duty Liability for Death Land Torts Nuisance Rylands v Fletcher Personal Torts Assault & Battery False Imprisonment Intentional Harm Defences General Defences Contributory Negligence Exclusion of Liability Volenti Non Fit Injuria Illegality Other Vicarious Liability Non-Delegable Duties Damages Injunction 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 Which four factors indicate that a defendant's actions are 'reasonable' for the purposes of private and public nuisance? The nuisance takes place at a reasonable time for a reasonable length The nuisance does not happen often The nuisance is low in intensity The nature of the locality makes the use normal The claimant was aware of the activity before they moved in The defendant is unaware of the impact on the claimant The defendant has planning permission 2 / 50 The claimant moves through a toll booth operated by the defendant. They then decide they want to leave, but the defendant will not let them past unless they pay a small fee. Has the defendant committed the tort of false imprisonment? Yes No Authority is conflicting Incorrect. It is not unlawful to make the claimant’s exit from a place he voluntarily entered conditional on a reasonable and fair action (such as paying a small fee): Robertson v Balmain New Ferry Company. Correct. 3 / 50 What three matters must the claimant establish to show that the defendant has committed private nuisance against them? The defendant has affected land in which the claimant has a property interest A substantial and unreasonable interference The defendant did not have planning permission or state authorisation for his activities The defendant has failed to take reasonable care The defendant has caused personal injury The defendant used land 4 / 50 What factors are relevant to whether the claimant waived liability for risk for the purposes of volenti non fit injuria? (Five answers) The risk was easily and conveniently avoidable The claimant incited or assisted in the creation of the risk There was no legitimate reason for the claimant to take the risk The claimant signed a written agreement acknowledging the risk The defendant was unaware the claimant was taking the risk The claimant believed the risk would not manifest Contributions of the claimant's employer in encouraging or discouraging the tort The claimant was engaged in illegal activity at the time of the tort The risk was serious and obvious Incorrect. Correct. 5 / 50 What duty of care is owed by occupiers to their visitors? A duty to protect the visitor from incurring any harm A duty to take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe in using the premises for any purposes A duty to take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe in using the premises for permitted purposes A duty to take reasonable care to avoid known dangers injuring the visitor Incorrect. The occupier owes all visitors a ‘common duty of care’. This is a duty to ‘take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.’ Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s 2(2). Correct. 6 / 50 Polly runs over Gareth in her car, instantly putting him in a coma. As part of his damages for a successful negligence claim, can Gareth claim compensation for loss of amenity? Select an answerYesThe law is unclearNo Incorrect. Unlike damages for pain and suffering, damages for loss of amenity are available even if the claimant is not able to perceive the loss: Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority. Correct. 7 / 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 relied on the defendant's advice or actions The defendant knew that the claimant would rely on them without verification The claimant had a special vulnerability The claimant shared a close tie of love and affection with the defendant A 'special relationship' exists between the parties The economic loss is a consequence of property damage or physical harm The defendant has not disclaimed responsibility Incorrect. The parties must 1) have a special relationship, 2) the defendant knew the claimant would rely on them, 3) the claimant did rely on the defendant, and 4) there is no disclaimer. See Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (No 1). Correct. 8 / 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? Select an answerThe law is unclearNoYes Incorrect. Where a tort kills the claimant, no losses accruing to their estate after death (including lost earnings) are recoverable, other than funeral expenses: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, s 1(2). Correct. 9 / 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 cause of action is extinguished The estate may sue, except for defamation or bereavement The estate may sue Incorrect. See Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, s 1(1). Correct. 10 / 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 case-law is inconsistent The moment damage happens (even if the breach is later) Incorrect. See Taylor v Somerset and Werb v Solent NHS Trust. Correct. 11 / 50 What are the elements for determining whether a mandatory injunction should be granted? (Four answers) Does the risk of injustice to the claimant if the injunction is refused outweigh the risk of injustice to the defendant if the injunction is granted? Is there a serious issue to be tried or has the claimant already succeeded at trial? Are damages adequate to compensate either party? Is there high degree of assurance that the claimant will succeed at trial or has the claimant already succeeded? Has the claimant suffered pecuniary loss? Where does the balance of convenience lie? Incorrect. See Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems. Correct. 12 / 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? Select an answerYesNo Incorrect. For the purposes of the personal interference torts, the claimant only needs to be told about the broad nature and purpose of defendant's actions: Chatterton v Gerson. Correct. 13 / 50 For the purposes of vicarious liability, what four factors indicate that the tort is within the field of activities entrusted or assigned to the primary tortfeasor by the defendant? The tort involved abusing power or authority granted by the defendant The tortfeasor intended, at least in part, to benefit the defendant or carry out his assigned duties There was an unbroken sequence of events between assigned duties and the tort The general activity the tort involved was part of the tortfeasor's job description The tort was one which frequently occurs in the relevant environment The defendant ought to have foreseen the risk of the tort occurring The defendant failed to instruct the tortfeasor not to perform the relevant action Incorrect. Correct. 14 / 50 What must the claimant show to establish that negligently inflicted harm is sufficiently non-remote? 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 That the defendant's breach caused the loss Incorrect. The claimant must show the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable: Wagon Mound (no 1). There is not normally any need to show that the extent or manner in which the harm was caused was foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate. Correct. 15 / 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? Select an answerYesNo Incorrect. This represents the sole exception to the rule that loss of a chance is not recoverable in English law: Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons. Correct. 16 / 50 When reducing damages for contributory negligence, can the court make a 100% reduction? Select an answerNoYes Incorrect. See Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd. Correct. 17 / 50 When will an occupier not be liable for dangers created by an independent contractor on their land? If the occupier has taken steps to verify the quality of the work The occupier is always liable for dangers created by independent contractors If the work was not the kind of work which the occupier could have performed themselves or via their employees If it was reasonable to entrust the work to the contractor and reasonable steps were taken to ensure competent and proper work The occupier is never liable for dangers created by independent contractors Incorrect. Where the danger to the visitor was caused by the ‘faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier’, the occupier is not liable if they acted reasonably in trusting the work to the independent contractor and they took reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the independent contractor was competent and had performed the work properly: Occupiers Liability Act s 2(4)(b). Correct. 18 / 50 What must the defendant demonstrate to establish contributory negligence? (Two answers) The claimant breached a duty of care owed to the defendant A third party negligently contributed to the occurrence of the damage or its extent The claimant did not take reasonable care for their safety The claimant’s lack of care contributed to the occurrence of the damage or its extent The claimant acted in a very unreasonable manner Incorrect. See Davies v Swan Motor. Correct. 19 / 50 What standard of care is imposed on children in the tort of negligence? The standard of a reasonable adult The standard of a reasonable child of the same age Children cannot be liable in negligence Incorrect. Children only need to reach the standard of a reasonable child of the same age: Mullin v Richards. Correct. 20 / 50 Which test applies when determining whether there is a duty of care in non-novel cases? Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman Incorrect. The test for a duty of care depends on whether the case is a novel situation or not. In novel case, the test in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman applies. In non-novel cases, the test in Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police applies. Correct. 21 / 50 How does a claimant establish factual causation in tort? By showing that there are no novus actus interveniens By showing that the type of loss caused was a foreseeable result of the breach 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 Incorrect. See Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital. Correct. 22 / 50 The default rule is that an injunction will be granted to restrain any public or private nuisance. True or false? Select an answerTrueFalse Incorrect. The general rule is that an injunction will automatically be awarded to stop an ongoing nuisance and prevent future nuisances without the need to establish the normal requirements: Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] AC 822. Correct. 23 / 50 The defendant is being sued for breach of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The escape was caused by the deliberate act of a third party. Is the defendant liable? Yes, unless the third party was an employee acting in the course of their employment Yes, unless the third party was entirely independent and their acts not a probable consequence of the defendant's acts No Yes No, unless the third party was acting in a way which was beneficial to the defendant's enterprise Incorrect. Defendants are not liable for the deliberate act of the third-party over whom they had no control and whose intervention was not a ‘reasonable and probable consequence’ of the defendant’s actions which he ought to have guarded against: Perry v Kendricks Transport. Correct. 24 / 50 If the claimant is a secondary victim, when will the courts presume that they shared a close tie of love and affection with someone injured in the event? (3 answers) If the claimant is the person's parent If the claimant is the person's grandparent If the claimant is the person's spouse or civil partner If the claimant is the person's fiancée If the claimant is the person's sibling If the claimant is the person's child Incorrect. Close ties are only presumed for parent, spouses/civil partners and fiancées. Correct. 25 / 50 What must be shown for a statutory duty to give rise to a separate action for breach of statutory duty? Harm is foreseeable, the parties have a proximate relationship and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability That the statute is of a particular class, such as penal or health and safety statutes Parliament intended to confer on members of a limited class of the public a private right to sue for breach of statutory duty There is always a separate action for breach of statutory duty Incorrect. Whether a breach of statutory duty gives rise to an action for damages depends on whether, on a proper construction of the statute, the duty is imposed to protect a limited class of the public and Parliament intended to confer on members of that class a private right to sue for breach of statutory duty: X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council. Correct. 26 / 50 Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, who bears the burden of proving that an exclusion or limitation notice is reasonable or unreasonable? A neutral burden applies The claimant The defendant Incorrect. The burden is on the person relying on the notice to prove that it is reasonable: s 11(5). Correct. 27 / 50 What factors are relevant to whether the defence of illegality is established? (Four answers) The remedy the claimant is seeking The extent to which the claimant must rely on evidence of illegality to establish the claim Whether the claimant knew his actions were illegal The importance of the illegal act or purpose to the parties transaction or interaction The seriousness of the illegality Whether the evidence was acquired illegally The relative culpability of the parties 28 / 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 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 Where it was reasonably foreseeable that the third-party might act on the defendant's instructions Incorrect. See Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales. Correct. 29 / 50 What standard of care is owed to a trespasser under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984? A duty to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser will be reasonably safe in using the premises No duty is owed to trespassers A duty to take reasonable steps to warn trespassers of any known dangers on the land A duty to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the relevant danger Incorrect. The duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers is a duty to ‘take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned’: Occupiers Liability Act 1984, s 1(4). Correct. 30 / 50 What is the purpose of damages in tort? To compensate the claimant To compensate the claimant and ensure the defendant is not unjustly enriched To compensate the claimant and punish the defendant Incorrect. Ordinary damages are designed to compensate the claimant for losses only. Correct. 31 / 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 There are no circumstances in which these powers are not a defence Where their actions are completely outside the lawful scope of the power Incorrect. See Hague v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison. Correct. 32 / 50 If the defendant did not directly cause a nuisance themselves, what must that the claimant show to demonstrate the defendant is responsible for a private nuisance? (Two answers) That the defendant continued or adopted the nuisance That the nuisance was a naturally occurring event or object on the land That the nuisance was caused by a third-party contractor of the defendant That the defendant had a property interest in the land That the defendant occupied the land Incorrect. If the defendant did not cause the nuisance (for example where it is a natural hazard or the use of the land by a third-party), they will only be liable for it if they are the lawful occupier of the land and continue or adopt the nuisance: Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan; Goldman v Hargrave. Correct. 33 / 50 When is an exclusion notice relating to economic loss or property damage invalid under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? Liability cannot be excluded under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 If it is unfair If it is unreasonable Incorrect. See the Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 62(2). Correct. 34 / 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 Incorrect. See Rhodes v OPO. Correct. 35 / 50 Can something which is inherent in how the product operates constitute a defect for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? Yes No Correct. Incorrect. See Bogle v McDonalds Restaurants. 36 / 50 Do local authorities owe citizens a duty to warn them that they are in danger? Select an answerNoYes Incorrect. No duty is owed according to the case of Mitchell v Glasgow City Council. Correct. 37 / 50 When will the defence of illegality bar a claim? When the claimant acquired the evidence to prove their claim illegally When the claimant is acting illegally in bringing the claim When the claimant must rely on evidence of their illegal act to establish the claim When the overall fairness of the case requires this, on an assessment of the trio of considerations Incorrect. See Patel v Mirza. Correct. 38 / 50 What type of harm must a primary or consequential victim of psychiatric harm in negligence show was foreseeable to establish that their loss was not too remote? A recognised psychiatric disorder Physical harm only Psychiatric harm only Physical and psychiatric harm Incorrect. The claimant only needs to show that physical harm was foreseeable: Malcolm v Broadhurst. Correct. 39 / 50 If the defendant touches the claimant accidentally but refuses to end the contact when asked, has the defendant committed the tort of battery? Select an answerYesNo Incorrect. Touching is a 'continuing act'. For this reason, if the defendant has the necessary intention to touch at any point, the tort can be established: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Correct. 40 / 50 When do fire and ambulance services owe a duty to people who request their aid? (Two answers) After the service has begun to help Never After the service has accepted a call and say they are sending help When the service answers the phone of someone asking for assistance When the service is told of the claimant's issue but before they say they are sending help Incorrect. A duty is only owed after the service says they are sending help or after they have begun to help - see Kent v Griffiths and Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council. Correct. 41 / 50 What is the effect of establishing the defence of volenti non fit injuria? The damages the defendant must pay are reduced The defendant is found not liable An injunction is unavailable to the claimant Incorrect. Volenti non fit injuria is a complete defence. Correct. 42 / 50 The standard of care in negligence lowered for learners, trainees or the inexperienced. True or false? Select an answerFalseTrue Incorrect. See Nettleship v Weston. Correct. 43 / 50 What type of harm must a secondary victim of psychiatric harm in negligence show was foreseeable to establish that their loss was not too remote? Physical harm only Psychiatric harm only A recognised psychiatric disorder Physical and psychiatric harm Incorrect. The claimant must show that a person of reasonable fortitude would suffer psychiatric harm: McLoughlin v O’Brian. Correct. 44 / 50 When is planning permission relevant to whether a defendant's activity is a nuisance? It is never relevant to whether the defendant's activity is a nuisance If it shows that the nature of the locality is changing or has changed, it can indicate reasonableness It shows that the defendant's activity may be reasonable Incorrect. Planning permission is relevant if it shows that the nature of the locality is changing or has changed, but does not make a nuisance reasonable by itself: Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham Docks). Correct. 45 / 50 When does the Bolam test not apply when determining if a professional is in breach of their duty in negligence? If there are no practical or logical reasons for the practice If the defendant acted in a manner which would would be accepted as proper practice by a responsible body of professionals skilled in the same art If there is no relevant body of professionals in the same field If the defendant is a trainee or junior Incorrect. If the practice is not logical or defensible, then it does not matter that a responsible body of professionals approve of it. Correct. 46 / 50 The claimant alleges that a local authority failed to exercise a statutory discretion which does not involve policy considerations, and caused them harm. When does the local authority owe them a duty of care in this scenario? If normal principles on duties of care apply If the decision was so unreasonable that it falls outside lawful scope of the power's discretion The local authority cannot owe a duty in this case Incorrect. For non-policy-based discretionary powers, a duty can only be owed if the local authority's act or omission is so unreasonable that it effectively is not a valid exercise of the discretion: X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council. Correct. 47 / 50 Are restitutionary damages ever available in tort? Yes, in all cases where the defendant has profited from the tort Yes, if the conditions set out in Attorney General v Blake are established No Incorrect. While at one time Attorney-General v Blake-style damages were thought to be restitutionary, they have now been clarified to be compensatory in Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd. Correct. 48 / 50 What three factors indicate that damages in lieu of an injunction should be granted in an injunction claim? Damages at trial would not adequately compensate the defendant for the effect of the injunction In the circumstances of the case it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction The claimant’s injury could be adequately compensated by a small compensation payment The balance of convenience favours a grant of damages The claimant's loss is small and pecuniary 49 / 50 What are the elements for determining whether a prohibitory injunction should be granted? (Three answers) Is there high degree of assurance that the claimant will succeed at trial or has the claimant already succeeded? Is there a serious issue to be tried or has the claimant already succeeded at trial? Does the risk of injustice to the claimant if the injunction is refused outweigh the risk of injustice to the defendant if the injunction is granted? Are damages adequate to compensate either party? Does the balance of convenience favour the grant? Incorrect. See American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd. Correct. 50 / 50 Can liability be excluded for a breach of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957? The law is unclear Only in business-to-business relations No Yes Incorrect. See the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s 2(1). Correct. Your score is Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading...
