Tort Law United Kingdom
Q1 – Car Driver A negligently parked his car on a motorway at night. Driver B stopped her car behind the first car, without hitting it. Then Driver B turned on her warning lights. Before Driver B had a chance to leave her car to get to safety, Driver C negligently collided with the Driver B’s car, causing injuries to Driver B. In an action by Driver B against Drivers A and C, what would be the most likely result?
a)- None of the other answers would be the most likely result
b)- Only Driver C would be liable because his negligence broke the chain of causation of Driver A’s negligence
c)- Liability would be apportioned between Driver A and Driver C
d)- Only Driver A would be liable, because, but for A’s negligence, Driver C would not have collided with Driver B’s car
Q2- Which ONE of the emergency services is subject to an immediate duty to respond?
a)- Police Service
b)- Mountain Rescue
c)- Fire Brigade
d)- Ambulance Service
Q3- Which one of the following is NOT a justification for the doctrine of vicarious liability?
a)- Vicarious liability acts as an incentive to ensure that employers take care in making appointments and maintain standards of good practice for their employees, who are under their control
b)- Vicarious liability acts as a loss distribution device whereby the financial loss arising from the wrongdoing can be spread more widely across the community, perhaps through insurance
c)- Employers derive an economic benefit from their employees’ work. As a consequence, the employers should bear any related costs arising from the work that the employees are carrying out
d)- Vicarious liability eases the financial hardship on employees who commit torts by exonerating the employees from responsibility for the torts they commit, and transferring that responsibility to employers
Q4- A woman complained to a doctor at a hospital of severe abdominal pain and incessant vomiting. The doctor sent the woman home from the hospital, telling her to drink lots of liquids. The woman died a few hours later. The cause of death was arsenic poisoning. If the woman had been admitted to the hospital and properly diagnosed, there would have been no chance that an antidote would have prevented her death. If an action is brought by the woman’s family, what would be the best argument that the doctor could make to reduce or avoid liability?
a)- Illegality because it is illegal for someone to put arsenic in food or beverages
b)- Lack of legal causation because the woman would have died anyway
c)- Volenti non fit injuria because the woman assumed the risk that she would die by consuming poison
d)- Lack of factual causation because the woman would have died anyway
Q5- Which ONE of the following four statements is true with regard to the decision in the case of Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691?
a)- The standard of duty of care applied to a learner driver is generally considerably lower than that applied to more experienced drivers
b)- None of these statements are true
c)- A learner driver can only be held liable in negligence for a collision where the learner driver was either speeding or under the influence of alcohol
d)- Learner drivers will generally be held to the same standard of duty of care as drivers who have passed their driving test
Q6- Which ONE of these statements is true with regard to the standard of duty of care applied to children?
a)- The standard of duty of care applied to a child will vary according to the age of the child
b)- No child under the age of 14 will be held to owe others a duty of care
c)- None of the other statements is true
d)- The standard of duty of care applied to a child is the same for all children under the age of 16
Q7- Graham broke his leg after tripping over while being chased by two police officers following a bank robbery by Graham and an accomplice. Graham attempts to sue the police for negligence. Which ONE of the following defences may the police be able to invoke?
a)- Volenti non fit injuria
b)- Necessity
c)- None of these defences
d)- Illegality
Q8- Which ONE of the following statements is true with regard to the decision of the court in the case of Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council[1997] QB 1004 on the liability of the fire service for negligence?
a)- The fire service will generally be held liable for acts but not omissions when tackling a fire
b)- The fire service will generally be held liable for all acts and omissions when tackling a fire
c)- The fire service has a positive obligation to attend every emergency call
d)- None of the other statements are true
Q9- In judging breach of duty for tort purposes, which of these characteristics of the actor must be considered?
a)- All of the other 3 characteristics
b)- the disabilities of the actor
c)- the skills of the actor
d)- the age of the actor
Q10- According to Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[1992] 1 AC 310, which of the following is NOT a factor to be taken into account when assessing proximity for purposes of recovery by secondary victims?
a)- Necessity of, and means by which, nervous shock is caused
b)- Contributory negligence of the secondary victim
c)- Closeness of claimant both physically and temporally to the accident
d)- Class of persons in terms of relationship to victim
Q11- Which, if any, of these duties would likely be considered a non-delegable duty for tort purposes by the courts?
a)- the duty to protect school children from injury during school swimming lessons
b)- All of these examples
c)- the duty to provide a well-maintained taxi cab
d)- the duty to provide employees with a safe work environment
Q12- Which one of the following is not true of factual causation?
a)- Factual causation employs the ‘but for’ test
b)- In limited circumstances factual causation uses a “material contribution” test
c)- The ‘but for’ test means that, but for the breach, the accident would not have occurred
d)- Factual causation includes legal causation
Q13- Which of the following is an accurate statement of the neighbour principle ofDonoghue v Stevenson[1932] UKHL 100?
a)- “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be possible to injure your neighbour.”
b)- “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts, but not omissions, which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
c)- “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
d)- “You must only take care to avoid acts or omissions which you expect will injure your neighbour.”
Q14- Which ONE of the following statements is true with regard to omissions in relation to the tort of negligence?
a)- There can be liability in tort for an omission, but only where it is accompanied by a positive act
b)- None of these statements are true
c)- There can never be any liability in tort for an omission
d)- There can be liability in tort for an omission, but it will usually be where there is a pre-tort relationship between the parties
Q15- Which one of these cases is concerned with the law on damages for nervous shock?
a)- Caparo Industries v Dickman
b)- Wilkinson v Downton
c)- Hadley v Baxendale d)- Donoghue v Stevenson
Q16- Why did the claimant inDonoghue v. Stevensonbring her action in tort instead of contract?
a)- Because the presence of the snail was a defect in quality rather than a danger b)- Because the purchaser of the ginger beer was injured due to her own oversensitivity
c)- Because the claimant had not actually purchased the ginger beer herself
d)- Because the company that bottled the ginger beer was not responsible for the snail in the bottle
Q17- Which ONE of the following is true for the doctrine of vicarious liability?
a)- Employers are never vicariously liable for the tort of an employee, committed in the course of their employment, where the tort also constitutes a serious crime
b)- Employers are never vicariously liable for the torts of their employees for torts committed after the employee has finished work and has left the place of employment
c)- An employer is not vicariously liable for the tort of an employee, committed in the course of employment, if the employee, in committing the tort, violated a specific policy of the employer
d)- None of the other answers are true
Q18- Which ONE of these statements on the ‘egg shell’ or ‘thin skull’ rule is correct?
a)- The egg-shell rule only applies in the case of physical injuries
b)- Where the extent of a claimant’s injuries from a negligent act is worse than might normally be expected because of an existing weakness or frailty, the defendant is still held responsible for the full extent of the claimant’s injuries
c)- None of the other statements is correct
d)- Where the extent of a claimant’s injuries from a negligent act is worse than might normally be expected because of an existing weakness or frailty, the defendant will not be held liable for the full extent of the claimant’s injuries
Q19- Which one of these statements, if any, is correct?
a)- Tort law determines the civil and criminal liability of a person.
b)- None of the other answers are correct
c)- The remedy awarded by a court for harm caused by a tort is usually damages.
d)- Tort law allows for the recovery of damages only for injuries to persons, not property.
Q20- When describing a reasonable person for purposes of negligence, which of the following statements is most accurate?
a)- A reasonable person is neither excessively cautious nor unusually risk-taking
b)- A reasonable person shows the same degree of control as a judge would show in all situations
c)- A reasonable person is not excessively risk-taking but is always very careful
d)- A reasonable person behaves in the same way as an average person of his/her age
Q21- Which ONE of the following statements is true with regard to claims for psychiatric harm?
a)- A claimant who has only witnessed an act of negligence can never claim damages for psychiatric injury against the negligent party
b)- A claimant can only ever claim damages for psychiatric injury against a defendant where the claimant in question has also sustained physical injury due to the defendant’s negligence
c)- None of the other statements is true
d)- A claimant who has only witnessed an act of negligence can always claim damages for psychiatric injury against the negligent party as long as the claimant’s psychiatric injury is genuine
Q22- Which of the following, if any, isn ota rationale for imposing strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities?
a)- None of these options – they are all rationales for imposing strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities
b)- obligation of a person to conduct her affairs so as not to injure another (control/deterrence)
c)- enterprise liability (liability for increasing risks)
d)- distributive justice (risk-spreading or ‘insurance’ or ‘deep pocket’ rationale
Q23- Which ONE of the following statements is correct with regard to liability in negligence for the acts of a third party?
a)- A person can be held liable in tort for the acts of a third party where there is a special relationship between that person and the third party
b)- None of these statements are correct
c)- A person can never be held liable in tort for the acts of a third party
d)- A person can only be held liable in tort for the acts of a third party where the two parties are members of the same family
Q24- A girl fell from her bicycle, seriously injuring her hip. In the hospital, the doctors negligently failed to diagnose that the girl had developed vascular neurosis (a condition where blood vessels die). The girl’s hip became paralysed. If the doctors had diagnosed the vascular neurosis, they could have treated it. But, even with prompt treatment, there would still have been a 75% likelihood of paralysis. If the girl were to bring an action against the doctors for negligence, which of the following would be the best argument that the doctors could make to reduce or avoid liability?
a)- Contributory negligence of the girl for coming off her bike
b)- Lack of legal causation between the doctors’ negligence and the girl’s paralysis, because vascular necrosis was an intervening cause (novus actus interveniens)
c)- Lack of legal causation between the doctors’ negligence and the girl’s paralysis, because paralysis was too remote
d)- Lack of factual causation because the girl’s hip would probably have become paralysed even if the doctors had not been negligent
Q25- Which of these is the strongest evidence that a person is an employee of a company for purposes of vicarious liability?
a)- The company pays the person a salary
b)- The person wears a jacket with the company’s logo on it
c)- The person is a member of a union that has a contract with the company
d)- The person’s spouse is a supervisor at the company
