FLK1 > Tort > Flashcards
Tort Flashcards
What constitutes trespass to land?
Direct physical interference with the claimant’s exclusive possession of the land, including the airspace above and the subsoil below.
Does trespass to land require intent to trespass?
No, it only requires intent to enter the land, even if the person does not know it belongs to someone else.
What is the key difference between trespass and nuisance?
Trespass involves direct physical interference, while nuisance involves indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land.
What are the elements required to establish negligence?
Duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages.
When will a court impose a duty of care in a novel situation?
If the claimant is foreseeable, there is sufficient proximity between the parties, and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose the duty.
What is the “reasonable person” standard?
An objective standard requiring a person to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.
How does res ipsa loquitur assist claimants in negligence cases?
It allows an inference of negligence when the event wouldn’t ordinarily occur without negligence, the defendant had control, and no other explanation exists.
What is contributory negligence?
A partial defense where the claimant’s own negligence contributed to their harm, reducing the damages proportionately.
What is voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria)?
A complete defense where the claimant had full knowledge of the risk and voluntarily accepted it.
What duties do employers owe to employees under tort law?
To provide a safe system of work, competent staff, safe equipment, and a safe workplace.
What is vicarious liability?
An employer’s liability for torts committed by an employee during the course of their employment.
When can pure economic loss be recovered in negligence?
When it arises from negligent misstatements, and the defendant knew the claimant would rely on the advice for a specific purpose.
Who qualifies as a primary victim in claims for psychiatric harm?
Someone in the actual area of danger created by the defendant’s negligence or a near-miss victim.
What additional criteria must secondary victims meet to recover damages?
They must have close ties to the endangered person, be present at the scene or immediate aftermath, suffer sudden shock, and have foreseeable psychiatric harm.
Who owes a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
Occupiers owe visitors a duty of care to ensure they are reasonably safe while on the premises.
What duty is owed to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
A limited duty to take reasonable care to protect trespassers from injury due to known dangers.
What is the standard of liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
Strict liability for damage caused by defective products, requiring no proof of fault but proof of a defect.
What defenses are available under the Consumer Protection Act?
The defect did not exist when supplied, state of the art, contributory negligence, or non-business supply.
What is private nuisance?
Unlawful interference with a claimant’s use or enjoyment of their land, such as noise, smells, or physical damage.
How does public nuisance differ from private nuisance?
Public nuisance affects a class of the public, whereas private nuisance affects the claimant’s land specifically.
What are the key elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Accumulation of a dangerous thing, non-natural use of land, escape, and foreseeable harm.
What are the defenses to liability under Rylands v Fletcher?
Act of a stranger, unforeseeable natural events, statutory authority, or contributory negligence.
What is the primary goal of damages in tort?
To put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred, as far as money can do so.
What are special damages?
Damages that can be precisely calculated at trial, such as past medical expenses or lost income.
What are general damages?
Damages assessed by the court, such as future losses or compensation for pain and suffering.
What protection does trespass to land provide?
It protects against unlawful interference with the usable space above and below the surface of the land.
Can trespass occur without physical damage to the land?
Yes, trespass can occur through mere entry or interference without causing damage.
What is required to establish a battery?
The intentional and direct application of force to another person without lawful justification
What factors determine whether the defendant breached the duty of care?
Likelihood of harm, seriousness of potential harm, practicability of precautions, and social utility of the defendant’s conduct.
What is the “egg shell skull rule” in negligence?
The defendant must take the claimant as they find them, meaning liability exists even if the claimant has an unusual susceptibility to injury
When does a claimant’s own action break the chain of causation in negligence?
When the claimant’s action is unreasonable and unforeseeable
What is the standard of care for children in negligence cases?
A child must act as a reasonable child of the same age would, unless engaging in adult activities (e.g., driving), in which case the adult standard applies
How does the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 affect liability?
Employers are liable for injuries caused by equipment defects, even if the defect is attributable to a third party, such as the manufacturer.
What defenses are available to employers in liability claims?
Voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
When is an employer vicariously liable for an employee’s tort?
When the tort is committed in the course of employment or is closely connected to the employee’s duties
hat is the difference between a “detour” and a “frolic” in vicarious liability?
A detour is a minor deviation from work duties, for which the employer is liable. A frolic is a major deviation, for which the employer is not liable
What types of defects can establish a product liability claim?
Manufacturing defects (flaws in production), design defects (unsafe by design), and insufficient warnings or instructions.
What damages are recoverable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
Personal injury and property damage (exceeding £275 for private property), but not pure economic losses.
What special duty is owed to children under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
Occupiers must take additional precautions, as children are less careful than adults.
When can an occupier be liable for injuries caused by independent contractors?
If the occupier failed to take reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor or ensuring the work was done properly.
Can an occupier exclude liability for negligence?
Only for property damage if the exclusion is reasonable. Liability for death or personal injury cannot be excluded in business premises.
What is “coming to the nuisance,” and is it a defense?
Moving to a location where a nuisance exists is not a valid defense against a nuisance claim
What is the defense of prescription in nuisance cases?
If a nuisance has continued for 20 years without interruption and was actionable throughout, the defendant may claim a prescriptive right to continue.
What is a “non-natural use of land” under Rylands v Fletcher?
A use that is unusual, extraordinary, or poses increased danger, such as storing large volumes of water or hazardous chemicals.
What is a valid defense for liability under Rylands v Fletcher?
The escape was caused by an unforeseeable act of a third party or natural event, or the claimant contributed to their harm.
What damages are available for loss of dependency under tort law?
Financial support lost due to the death of a person on whom the claimant depended, calculated based on income and life expectancy.
Who can claim bereavement damages?
The spouse, civil partner, or parents (if the deceased was under 18 and unmarried). Children of the deceased cannot claim bereavement damages.
How are future losses in personal injury claims calculated?
By assessing the income difference before and after the injury, adjusted for life contingencies, and awarded as a present-value lump sum
How does breach of statutory duty establish liability in tort?
If the claimant is within the class of persons the statute was meant to protect, and the harm suffered is the type the statute intended to prevent.
A manufacturing company received a large order from a customer. Before the company manufactured the goods, they decided to check the financial position of the customer. They asked their bank to get a financial report from the customer’s bank. The customer’s bank replied favourably that the customer was “considered good for its ordinary business engagements”. There was no fee for this advice. As a result, the company manufactured the goods and delivered them to the customer. However, the customer went bankrupt without paying for the goods and the company lost £50,000. The evidence showed that the customer’s bank had acted negligently. The company sued the customer’s bank in negligence.
Describe whether the manufacturing company has a claim against the customer’s bank?
There is a claim because there is a special relationship between the parties creating a duty for the customer’s bank to take reasonable care in giving advice.
There is a claim in the tort of negligence against the customer’s bank. The company has suffered pure economic loss (in this case, financial loss which does not flow from damage to the claimant’s person or property). The general rule is that no duty of care is owed in respect of pure economic loss. There is an exception to this rule for pure economic loss caused by negligent statements where there is a special relationship between the defendant and claimant. The following conditions need to be established for a special relationship to arise: (1) the advice is required for a purpose made known to the defendant, (2) the defendant knows that the advice will be communicated to the claimant and will be relied on, (3) the claimant must have relied on the information and (4) it must have been reasonable for the claimant to do so. Here, these conditions appear to be satisfied, so it is likely that a special relationship will be established and a duty of care owed. The facts say that the bank acted negligently, so breach of duty is established and it is clear that the breach caused the company’s loss.
A claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The claimant’s car suffered minor damage to the bodywork. The claimant was not hurt in the accident but was very shocked. She is later diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) caused by the shock of the accident.
Describe the outcome of a claim by the claimant against the defendant?
The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD because she was in the area of danger created by the defendant’s negligence.
The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD. She has suffered psychiatric harm without physical impact. As someone in the actual area of danger created by the defendant’s negligence, she is a primary victim. As a primary victim, she is owed a duty of care in respect of her psychiatric harm, provided that there was a foreseeable risk of physical injury to her, which the traffic accident establishes. It also is clear that the duty has been breached (the defendant was negligent) and that the breach caused her damage (the PTSD was caused by the shock of the accident).
A man is driving his car along a road. As he approaches a pedestrian crossing, he does not see the traffic lights at red and he fails to stop. A woman who is crossing the road on the pedestrian crossing just manages to jump out of the path of the car. She is angry and shaken but is otherwise unhurt.
Describe why the man is not liable to the woman in the tort of negligence?
The man did owe the woman a duty of care and was in breach, but the breach of duty did not cause any actionable harm.
The man is not liable to the woman because, although he did owe her a duty of care and was in breach, the breach of duty did not cause any actionable harm.
A solicitor went to work on a Saturday. When she signed in, the security guard told her that all staff were required to leave the building by 5.00 pm and were not authorised to remain on the premises after that time. However, at the end of the day the solicitor had not finished her work and so decided to remain after 5.00 pm. At 5.30 the security guard locked all the doors and left the premises. The guard carelessly failed to check whether everyone had left the building so he was not aware that the solicitor had remained there. When the solicitor tried to leave the premises, she discovered that she was locked in. She telephoned for help and was released about 30 minutes later.
Describe the outcome of a claim by the solicitor against the guard for false imprisonment?
The solicitor’s claim in not likely to succeed because the guard did not know that she was locked in the building.
The solicitor’s claim is unlikely to succeed. For a successful claim in false imprisonment, the defendant’s actions in confining the claimant must be intentional. This is not satisfied because the guard did not know the solicitor was locked in the building. (A) is not correct. For a successful claim in false imprisonment it is not sufficient that the defendant acted negligently.
A farmer makes a haystack with hay that is not properly dry. The stack later catches fire and causes severe burns to a neighbour who comes to help fight the fire. Evidence shows that bacterial action in the damp hay had caused the stack to heat up and ignite. Some local landowners were aware of the danger of storing damp hay in a stack, but the farmer himself was not aware of the risk.
In an action by the injured neighbour against the farmer in the tort of negligence, which is true?
The farmer did owe a duty of care and will be found liable if the neighbour can show that a reasonable person farming in the locality would have been aware of the risk from damp hay.
The farmer owed his neighbour a duty of care, and he will be in breach of that duty if he fell below the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person in his position. The burden of proving breach of duty is on the neighbour as claimant.
An employer has two employees, X and Y, who work together. Recently, X very carelessly switched on a machine as Y was cleaning it, causing Y to suffer a serious injury. Prior to this incident X had no previous record of any kind of careless behaviour. The employer can prove that it checked X’s qualifications before employing him and provided regular safety training during his employment. An expert’s report on the machine shows that there was no defect in the machine, and it would have been safe if used properly.
In a claim by Y against the employer to recover damages for the injury caused by X, which best describes the outcome?
The employer is liable to Y because X committed a tort against Y during the course of his employment.
The employer is liable to Y. X has committed the tort of negligence against Y. This tort was committed during the course of X’s employment (on the facts, there was a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the tort). Therefore, the employer is vicariously liable to Y for X’s tort.
A mother took her daughter, aged 9, to a pizza restaurant owned and run by a company. Whilst the mother was choosing from the menu, the child wandered away and the mother failed to notice. The child approached the wood fired pizza oven, located in the centre of the restaurant. She was able to pass beneath a safety barrier to gain access to the hot oven. She then touched the oven and badly burned her hand. At no time did the child leave the area of the restaurant open to the public, and an expert report later showed that the safety barrier was set at a height adequate for adults.
In a claim by the child against the company for damages for her personal injury, which of the following statements is correct?
The company is liable to the child because an occupier should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults and, on the facts, it did not take sufficient precautions to protect child visitors.
The company is liable to the child. The child has suffered an injury caused by the state of the premises (the hot oven). The company is the occupier of the premises and the child is a lawful visitor (she never left the area of the restaurant open to the public so did not become a trespasser at any stage). In these circumstances, the duty owed is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (‘1957 Act’). Under this Act the company owes the child a duty of care. This is a duty to take reasonable care to see that the child will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which she is permitted to be there. The Act provides that an occupier should be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. On the facts, it appears that this duty has been breached because the safety barrier around the hot oven was at a height adequate for adults but not for children (because the child was able to pass beneath it). Causation of damage is also satisfied. Therefore, the company is liable to the child.
A landowner managed his very large garden and opened it to the public so that they could view the plants. Pursuant to this permission, a lady entered the garden and walked round to look at the plants. Unfortunately, she slipped on a moss-covered pathway. She fell and broke her wrist. She also damaged her expensive camera in the fall. She seeks damages for the harm suffered, alleging that the slippery moss should have been cleared from the pathway.
Describe the duty owed by the owner of the garden to the lady who fell?
The landowner owes the lady a duty to take reasonable care to see that she will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.
The landowner owes the lady the duty owed to lawful visitors. The landowner has control over the garden and so is the occupier. The lady who fell entered the garden with permission and so is a lawful visitor. The damage was caused by the state of the premises. Hence, the duty of the occupier to his lawful visitors in respect of damage caused by the state of the premises is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It is a duty to take reasonable care to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.
A garden centre stored weed killer in barrels. One of the barrels suddenly split open without warning, causing weedkiller to leak out. The weedkiller was washed by a heavier than expected rain onto a neighbour’s property, causing extensive damage to the neighbour’s vegetable garden and fruit trees.
If the neighbour brings an action against the manufacturer of the barrel, which of the following states the manufacturer’s best defence?
The garden centre’s storage of weedkiller was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels.
The manufacturer’s best defence is that the garden centre’s storage of weedkiller was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels. A manufacturer may be strictly liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for damage caused by defective products. The claimant need not show fault, but must show that the product wasn’t safe for a use to which the product might reasonably be expected to be put. The manufacturer would have a defence if it shows that the garden centre’s storage of weedkiller in the barrels was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels.
A statute imposes the following duty on operators of fairground rides:
“For the protection of children under age 18, the operator shall provide safety harnesses on all seats and shall ensure that such harnesses are in a safe condition at all times”.
The operator of a fairground ride provided safety harnesses and took care to check them regularly. However, one of the harnesses failed during use because of a latent defect which could not have been discovered. A customer on the ride, aged 20, was injured when the harness failed.
In a claim by the injured customer against the operator of the ride for breach of statutory duty, which of the following statements best describes the outcome?
The claim is likely to fail because the injured customer did not come within the class of persons protected by the statutory duty.
The claim is likely to fail. For a successful claim for breach of statutory duty, the claimant must show that they are within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute. The statutory duty was imposed for the protection of children under age 18. The injured customer was aged 20 and so did not come within the class of persons protected by the statutory duty.
A man recently purchased a cafe and all its contents. One of the items he acquired was a rotary meat slicing machine. The machine had been purchased direct from the manufacturer by the previous owner of the cafe. Last week, the man was using the machine in the cafe when the blade spun out of the machine and caused him to suffer a severe laceration. The blade also smashed a stack of expensive crockery. An expert report later showed that the machine suffered from a dangerous manufacturing defect which was the cause of the accident.
In a claim by the man against the manufacturer to recover damages for his losses, which of the following statements is correct?
The man will have a claim for his personal injury under the statutory provisions imposing strict liability for damage caused by defective products, but for the damage to the crockery the man would need to pursue a claim in the tort of negligence.
The man can recover in strict liability for his personal injury. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (‘CPA’) applies because he suffered damage caused by a defect in a product. The manufacturer is a potential defendant under the Act, as the producer of the product. Liability under the Act is strict. So, the man should have a claim under the Act for his personal injury. However, the Act does not apply to damage to business property caused by a defective product, so the claim under the CPA could not cover the damaged crockery. For the damaged crockery, the man would need to pursue a claim in the tort of negligence.
A housewife baked a cake and donated it to an elderly persons’ coffee morning. An elderly lady ate some of the cake and suffered from severe food poisoning. Evidence showed that the cake contained raw eggs which had not been cooked properly. The housewife lacked experience in baking and was not aware of the need to ensure that the eggs were fully cooked.
If the elderly woman brings a claim against the housewife in the tort of negligence, which of the following best describes the likely result?
The elderly woman is likely to have a successful claim in negligence because the housewife was in breach of her duty of care to the elderly woman and caused the damage suffered.
The elderly woman is likely to have a successful claim in negligence. The housewife owed the elderly woman a duty of care – falling within the established duty owed by a manufacturer to a consumer (the housewife made the cake and donated it expecting it to be eaten). The housewife is in breach of her duty because she has fallen below a reasonable standard of care (by not cooking the eggs properly). The standard of care is objective so the housewife cannot rely on her own lack of experience to argue that she was not in breach. The housewife’s breach of duty has caused the harm suffered.
A boy hit his ball over the fence into a neighbour’s garden. The boy asked the neighbour for permission to enter her garden. She agreed but warned him not to go beyond a fence near the bottom of the garden because the garden beyond that was in a dangerous condition and he could be hurt. When he entered the garden, the boy saw that his ball had landed beyond the fence, so he climbed over it. As the boy bent down to retrieve the ball, he brushed against an exposed electric wire hidden by an overgrown bush. He received a shock and sustained burns. The exposed electric wire was known to the neighbour.
What is the likely result if the boy sues the neighbour?
The neighbour is not liable because she appears to have adequately discharged any duty of care she may have owed to the boy.
The neighbour is not liable. Although the boy had permission to enter the garden, he became a trespasser when he exceeded that permission by climbing over the fence. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 therefore applies. An occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser provided she is aware of the danger, and that the trespasser may come into the vicinity of it, and the danger is one against which it would, in all the circumstances, be reasonable to expect her to offer protection. If these conditions are satisfied, the occupier’s duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger. The Act provides that the duty may be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, such as giving warning of the danger concerned or discouraging persons from incurring the risk. On the facts, the occupier may owe the boy a duty of care. However, she appears to have discharged that duty by warning the boy not to go beyond the fence because it was dangerous and he could be hurt.
A dog whistle manufacturer’s factory was located near a residential area. The manufacturer used the most effective methods for testing its whistles, but it was impossible to completely soundproof the testing area. A breeder of champion show dogs bought some property near the factory. Her dogs were able to hear the whistles and consequently were in a constant state of agitation, with the result that she was unable to carry on her business effectively. Evidence showed that the whistles caused no disruption to ordinary pet dogs in the surrounding homes, but the breeder’s dogs were affected because they had abnormally sensitive hearing.
Which of the following is the most likely outcome in a claim by the breeder against the manufacturer?
The breeder will not be successful in a claim in the tort of nuisance because the sound of the whistles does not create an unreasonable interference with the breeder’s use of her land.
The breeder will not be successful. Nuisance requires an unlawful interference with the claimant’s use of land. An interference is unlawful when it is substantial and unreasonable. An interference will not be considered unreasonable when it only interferes with the claimant’s use of land because of the claimant’s abnormal sensitivity. On the facts, the breeder’s dogs are only affected by the sound of the whistles because of their abnormally sensitive hearing. Therefore, she will not succeed in a claim in nuisance.
A manufacturer produced a household cleaning product containing toxic chemicals. The product was sold in plastic bottles which carry a clear warning that the product is harmful if swallowed. The bottle cap is manufactured to a childproof design which is recognised as a standard safety feature across the industry. Recently, a child of four was left unsupervised by his mother and gained access to a sealed bottle of the product. He was successful in opening the childproof cap. He drank from the bottle and was injured.
In a claim by the child against the manufacturer to recover damages for his injury, which of the following statements best explains the likely outcome?
The child will not have a successful claim, provided that recognition of the bottle cap’s design as a standard safety feature across the industry means that the cap was as safe as persons generally are entitled to expect.
The child will not have a successful claim. For a successful claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (‘CPA’), the child would need to show that he had suffered damage caused by a defect in a product. The Act provides that there is a defect in a product if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. So, provided the industry’s recognition of the design of the bottle cap as a standard safety feature means that the cap was as safe as persons generally are entitled to expect, then the product was not defective, and the child will not have a successful claim under the CPA. Also, the child is unlikely to have a successful claim in the tort of negligence. The manufacturer did owe him a duty of care. However, it is likely that the manufacturer was not in breach of that duty. It met the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable manufacturer by using a childproof design recognised across the industry. (A) is not correct. It is true that manufacturer to consumer is an established duty situation in the tort of negligence. However, on the facts, it appears that the manufacturer was not in breach of that duty.
A landowner planned to have a new storage facility constructed on his land. He decided to site it immediately next to the boundary with his neighbour. When complete, he used it to store a large quantity of industrial chemicals in plastic drums. Without anyone’s knowledge, the plastic of the drums suddenly became very brittle when the weather turned sharply cold, and they quickly cracked and began to leak. The leaking chemicals poured out of the drums and directly onto the neighbour’s land, causing serious contamination. Evidence showed that the sudden brittleness of the plastic drums could not have been detected even with careful inspection.
In relation to a claim against the landowner by the neighbour whose land was contaminated, which of the following statements is correct?
The neighbour may have a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
The neighbour may have a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The landowner has gathered on his land something likely to cause harm if it escapes (the chemicals). Storage of large quantities of industrial chemicals is likely to be a non-natural use of the land. The chemicals have escaped and caused damage to the neighbour. Therefore, the neighbour is likely to have a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is strict, so the landowner can be liable despite the fact that the weakened condition of the plastic drums could not have been discovered
An adult man was struck and killed by a negligently driven car. The man left an elderly mother who was dependent on him for financial support and a young child from a previous relationship who did not receive financial support from him.
Which of the following best describes the availability of bereavement and loss of dependency damages?
The mother can recover only loss of dependency damages while the child cannot recover either bereavement or loss of dependency damages.
The mother can recover only loss of dependency damages while the child cannot recover either bereavement or loss of dependency damages. If the deceased would have been able to bring a tort claim on account of a negligent act that caused their death, dependants may be able to seek damages for bereavement and/or loss of dependency. Bereavement damages are recoverable only by the deceased’s spouse or civil partner, or cohabitant of more than 2 years, or the deceased’s parents if the deceased was under age 18 and never married. Children of the deceased are not entitled to bereavement damages. Loss of dependency damages are available if the claimant was within the statutory list of eligible dependants of the decedent and was financially dependent on the deceased. Here, the deceased was over age 18, so the mother is not entitled to bereavement damages
A man was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The man’s injuries were caused partly by his own contributory negligence in failing to wear a seat belt. As a result of the injuries, the man experienced several days of pain and suffering and he then died. He was survived by a wife and son, both financially dependent on him. Claims for damages are pursued against the defendant for the benefit of the man’s estate and for the benefit of his dependants.
What is the effect of the man’s contributory negligence on those claims?
The man’s contributory negligence will reduce both the damages awarded on the claim for the benefit of his estate and the damages on the claim for his dependants.
The man’s contributory negligence will reduce the damages on both those claims. By law, the man’s claim existing at the date of his death survives for the benefit of his estate. This means that the partial defence of contributory negligence also survives his death, so the damages for his estate should be reduced. In addition, a new claim arises for the benefit of his dependants; however, where the damages on the claim for the estate would be reduced for contributory negligence, the damages under the claim for the benefit of dependants is also to be reduced.
A motorist was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of a lorry driver. The car belonging to the motorist was damaged beyond repair in the accident. The motorist survived for several weeks, during which time he suffered great pain. He then died. He suffered a loss of earnings from the date of the accident to the date of his death. Had he lived, he would have worked for a further 20 years. He left a wife who was financially dependent on him.
In a claim against the lorry driver pursued by the motorist’s estate, which of the following statements is correct?
The claim pursued by the motorist’s estate should be for damages for his pain, suffering, and loss of amenity between the date of the accident and the date of death; his loss of earnings for that period; and the value of his car.
The claim pursued by the motorist’s estate includes all of his damages between the date of the accident and the date of his death. By law, the motorist’s cause of action existing at the date of his death survives for the benefit of his estate, with the exception that the estate cannot recover damages for loss of income in the period after death.
A cyclist was riding his bicycle along a trail with due care when a deer suddenly leaped out of the trees in front of him. The cyclist swerved to avoid hitting the deer and bumped into a jogger near him, causing the jogger to suffer cuts and bruises. The jogger also has begun to suffer from an anxiety disorder as a result of the collision, and she is afraid to jog any longer when others are nearby.
In an action by the jogger against the cyclist, which of the following best describes the likely outcome?
The cyclist did owe a duty of care to the jogger in respect of all her injuries but does not appear to be in breach of that duty, so therefore the cyclist would not be liable.
The cyclist owed the jogger a duty of care. However, on the facts, he was riding carefully and appears to have responded reasonably to the deer suddenly leaping in front of him. Therefore, he does not appear to have fallen below a reasonable standard of care and would not be in breach of duty. So, he is not likely to be liable.
A child aged 3 was walking along the pavement with her mother next to a busy road. The mother did not hold the child by the hand and was distracted by looking at her mobile phone. Suddenly, the child ran into the road into the path of a car driven by the defendant. The defendant was unable to avoid hitting the child, who suffered a broken leg. The court found that the driver had been exceeding the speed limit for the road where the accident occurred, and that if he had not been exceeding the limit, he would have been able to stop in time and avoid hitting the child.
In a claim by the child against the driver, which of the following statements is correct?
The driver may seek a contribution from the child’s mother towards any damages he is ordered to pay to the child.
The driver may seek contribution from the child’s mother. The mother owes the child a duty of care. The mother appears to have breached that duty by failing to take reasonable care for the child’s safety. The mother’s breach of duty is a cause of the child’s injury. The driver also owes a duty of care to the child. He has breached his duty by failing to take reasonable care, by driving over the speed limit. The driver’s breach of duty is also a cause of the child’s injury. The child has suffered one indivisible injury caused by both the mother and the driver. So, both the mother and the driver are liable to the child in respect of the same damage. In those circumstances, the driver may recover a contribution from the mother towards any damages he is ordered to pay.
A boy mowing his lawn with an electric mower noticed a strong vibration from the engine but continued to mow. The engine housing suddenly broke apart and pieces flew off the lawnmower. One piece struck the boy in the head, seriously injuring him. The boy’s mother, who was out shopping, came home several hours later and was told about the accident. That evening she visited him in hospital and was so distressed that she fainted. She was subsequently diagnosed with an anxiety disorder brought about by the incident. A later investigation showed that a negligent repair by a local mechanic caused the engine housing to shatter. The mother brought a claim against the mechanic, seeking recovery for the psychiatric harm she suffered.
Which of the following statements best describes the mechanic’s liability?
The mechanic is not liable because the mother was away when the accident occurred.
The mechanic is not liable because the mother was away when the accident occurred. The mother has suffered psychiatric harm without physical impact. She cannot establish that the mechanic owed her a duty of care in respect of such harm. She is not owed a duty of care as a primary victim because she was not in the area of danger. As a bystander witnessing the injury to her son, she is a secondary victim. For a duty of care to be owed to her as a secondary victim, she must suffer from a medically diagnosed psychiatric condition (which she does). She must also satisfy all of the following: (1) there must be a close tie of love and affection between the claimant and the person injured by the defendant; (2) the claimant must have been present at the accident or its immediate aftermath; (3) the claimant must have witnessed the events with her own senses; and (4) it must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude in the position of the claimant would suffer a psychiatric injury. As she was away shopping at the time of the accident, she was not present to witness the accident with her own senses. So, no duty of care is owed to her.
A food delivery company provided company vans for its employees to make the deliveries. One of the employees took a friend with her to help her carry the parcels and get the deliveries done more quickly. Taking the friend as a passenger was contrary to company policy, of which the employee was aware, which expressly forbid anyone other than employees from travelling in company vehicles. During a delivery with her friend, the employee collided with a cyclist due to the employee’s negligence. Both the cyclist and the employee’s friend are injured as a result of the collision.
What is the position as regards the employer’s vicarious liability for the employee’s negligence?
The employer is likely to be liable to both the cyclist and the friend because the employee’s negligence was in the course of her employment.
The employer is likely to be liable to both. The employee has committed the tort of negligence against two different victims, the cyclist and the friend, and the considerations which apply to each are different. As regards the cyclist, the tort was clearly within the course of the employee’s employment (in driving the van to deliver the parcels she was doing what she was employed to do). As regards the friend, the matter is more complex because the employee disobeyed an instruction from the employer by taking the friend as a passenger. The employer may argue that, in relation to the friend’s injury, the employee was acting outside the course of her employment. However, the employee took the friend with her to help deliver the parcels more quickly, so her disobedience was for a purpose which furthered the employer’s business. Therefore, it is likely that the employee remained within the course of her employment (the prohibition limiting only the manner in which the employment was carried out rather than the scope of employment), so the employer is vicariously liable to both the cyclist and the friend.
A food delivery company provided company vans for its employees to make the deliveries. One of the employees took a friend with her to help her carry the parcels and get the deliveries done more quickly. Taking the friend as a passenger was contrary to company policy, of which the employee was aware, which expressly forbid anyone other than employees from travelling in company vehicles. During a delivery with her friend, the employee collided with a cyclist due to the employee’s negligence. Both the cyclist and the employee’s friend are injured as a result of the collision.
What is the position as regards the employer’s vicarious liability for the employee’s negligence?
The employer is likely to be liable to both the cyclist and the friend because the employee’s negligence was in the course of her employment.
A driver negligently crashed into a fellow motorist. As a result of the collision, the other motorist suffered a psychiatric injury and the aggravation of a pre-existing spinal injury, and a very expensive vase that the motorist was transporting in the boot of his car was smashed.
What are the likely damages that the motorist will be able to recover from the negligent driver?
Damages for the new psychiatric injury, the aggravation of the spinal injury and the damage to the expensive vase.
An employer wished to stage an event in a marquee. He engaged an independent contractor to erect the marquee, having carefully checked the contractor’s qualifications and experience. Once the marquee was erected the employer sent his employees to work there, serving customers. At the end of the day, after all the customers had left, the marquee suddenly collapsed. Several employees were severely injured. Evidence later showed that the contractor who erected the marquee had carelessly failed to secure the guy ropes, and this had caused the collapse.
Which of the following statements best describes the outcome in a claim by the injured employees against the employer?
The employer will be liable to the employees because the employer’s own duty of care has been broken by the contractor’s failure to exercise reasonable care.
A woman is walking along a road when a bucket of dirty water falls on her from above and ruins her expensive coat. On looking up she sees a man on a ladder cleaning windows. He admits that he dropped the bucket but denies that he is liable to her for the damage to her coat.
In a claim by the woman against the man, which of the following is correct?
The woman will have a successful claim in the tort of negligence provided that she can prove that the bucket fell because the man did not exercise reasonable care.
A museum organised an event on its premises at which carefully selected craftspeople were to demonstrate ancient crafts. Each craftsperson was a self-employed independent contractor paid a fee by the museum. The museum determined what demonstration each craftsperson would do, and it made all the safety arrangements. The public gained entry to the event by purchasing a ticket from the museum. Unfortunately, during one of the demonstrations, a craftsman injured a spectator when he negligently invited her to place her hands in a solution he was using as part of his demonstration, and she suffered chemical burns.
In an action by the spectator against the museum, which of the following is true?
The museum could be liable for the negligence of the craftsman because the craftsman’s tort was closely connected with the demonstration and he was undertaking the work on behalf of the museum as part of the museum’s business activity, provided the spectator can show that this created the risk of the tort occurring.
A youth was found unconscious and taken to a hospital where he was examined by the doctor on duty. The doctor was inexperienced and failed to notice clear symptoms indicating that the youth had taken an overdose of drugs. The doctor failed to administer the correct treatment and the youth later died. The post-mortem examination confirmed that the youth had taken a drug overdose of such magnitude that it was inevitably fatal, whatever medical treatment had been administered.
If the estate of the deceased youth brings proceedings in tort against the doctor alleging negligence, which of the following best describes the likely outcome
The doctor will not be liable, because, while he owed the youth a duty of care and may have been in breach, such breach was not the cause of the youth’s death.
The doctor will not be liable. The estate of the deceased youth might consider a claim in the tort of negligence, but it is not likely to succeed. Doctor to patient is an established duty situation. So, the doctor did owe the youth a duty of care. To be in breach of duty the doctor must have fallen below a reasonable standard of care. On the facts, this appears to be satisfied since the doctor failed to notice clear symptoms and failed to administer the correct treatment. However, for a successful claim, it must also be shown that the breach of duty was the cause of the damage suffered. On the facts, this is not satisfied. It cannot be said that ‘but for’ the doctor’s breach of duty the youth would have lived. The evidence shows that he would have died in any event, even had the doctor not been negligent.
A journalist, reporting for a newspaper on financial matters, published a report on a company suggesting that its shares were a good investment. The journalist honestly believed that his advice was true but, in fact, the company was not a good investment because it was losing money. The journalist could have found this out if he had taken time to check the most recent published information on the company, but he failed to do so. A reader of the newspaper relied on the journalist’s report, without contacting the journalist and without taking any independent advice. He invested a substantial amount of money in the company and suffered huge losses as a result.
In an action by the reader against the journalist, which of the following statements best describes the likely result?
The reader is unlikely to have a successful claim because, when investing a substantial amount of money, it was not reasonable for him to rely on the journalist’s report without taking any independent advice.
A husband went to a restaurant to meet his wife. As he arrived outside the restaurant, he saw a large artwork crash from its pedestal onto the floor in the restaurant. He then rushed inside and saw several injured persons, including his wife, lying in the wreckage of the artwork. He was extremely shocked and has since been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’). The evidence shows that the artwork collapsed because it had been incorrectly installed by the restaurant staff.
Which of the following statements best explains whether the husband is likely to succeed in a claim against the restaurant in respect of his PTSD?
The husband is likely to succeed because his PTSD was caused by witnessing the injury caused to his wife.
At a children’s soft play centre, all visitors, including adults, were required to remove their shoes and place them at the side of the play area. Upon leaving the soft play area, a mother who was in a hurry accidentally took a pair of designer shoes belonging to another parent instead of her own shoes, which looked virtually identical. Upon arriving home the mother realised her mistake but decided to keep the shoes.
Which of the following best describes the mother’s liability?
The mother is liable for trespass to goods and conversion.
The mother is liable for trespass to goods and conversion. Trespass to goods can be committed by taking goods belonging to another, which is the case in this scenario. Even though the mother mistakenly believed that the shoes were her own, a claim for trespass to goods does not require that the defendant intend to commit the tort, only that the defendant intend to do the act of interference (that is, take the shoes). Conversion takes place when a person deals with goods in a way which is seriously inconsistent with the rights of the owner. The act needs to be so extensive an encroachment on the rights of the owner that it excludes the owner from the use and possession of the goods, as is the case in this scenario. Again, intent to commit the tort is not required, only intent to do the act.
When a crowded bus braked suddenly, the standing passengers were thrown together, and a woman wearing very high-heeled shoes began to stumble. A man who was unknown to the woman kept her from falling by grabbing her shoulder.
Which of the following statements best describes the man’s liability to the woman for battery?
The man will not be liable because his conduct was socially acceptable.
The man will not be liable. The woman would not be successful in bringing an action for battery because the man’s contact did not constitute a hostile contact. Battery is the intentional direct application of unlawful force to the claimant’s person. Judged by this standard, the man’s conduct in trying to keep the woman from falling in a crowded bus would not be unlawful. Bodily contact is not unlawful if it can generally be expected in the ordinary conduct of everyday life, which would include contact resulting from assistance to a fellow passenger in a crowded bus.
A grocer contracted with an electrician to replace lighting for display cases at his store. Before engaging the electrician for this job, the grocer confirmed that the electrician had appropriate qualifications and experience. Once the lighting was completed, the grocer had a safety inspector approve the work. However, on the day after the work was completed, a customer suffered a severe shock when she touched the metal side of a display case. Evidence later showed that the electrician had failed to properly ground the wiring installation, leading to the metal of the display case to become charged with electricity.
In a claim by the customer against the grocer for injuries she suffered from the electrical shock, which of the following statements is correct?
The grocer will not be liable to the customer even though he owed a duty of care in respect of the safety of the premises, because he discharged that duty by acting reasonably to engage a competent electrician and have the work checked.
The grocer will not be liable to the customer. Harm has been caused to the customer by the state of the premises, the grocer is the occupier of the premises, and the customer is a lawful visitor. So, liability is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The occupier owes a duty of care in respect of the condition of the premises. That duty may be discharged by employing an independent contractor to carry out work of construction, maintenance, or repair, provided that the occupier acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the contractor was competent and the work properly done. So, on the facts, the grocer discharged the duty which he owed to his customer by engaging a qualified electrician and having the work inspected.
A woman was at home when a contractor called at her house and offered to renovate her driveway, saying that the price would be cheap if he did the work immediately. The woman agreed. The work was arranged so quickly that the woman had no time to check the contractor’s qualifications or experience, but she was happy with the price, so she decided to go ahead. The contractor laid new concrete paving slabs on the drive but did so poorly, leaving them very uneven and unsafe. The next day, the woman had some shopping delivered to the house. Unfortunately, the delivery driver tripped over one of the new paving slabs and fell, suffering a broken wrist.
In an action by the delivery driver against the woman to recover damages for his injury, which of the following best describes the likely outcome?
The woman is liable because she did not take any steps to check that the contractor who laid the uneven paving slabs was competent.
The woman is liable to the delivery driver. The woman, as occupier of the premises (including the drive), owes a duty of care to her lawful visitors in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises. The duty arises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The duty is to take reasonable care to see that visitors are reasonably safe in using the premises. Where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance, or repair by an independent contractor, the occupier’s duty may be discharged by using such contractor, provided that, first, the occupier acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor, and second, the occupier took such steps as she reasonably ought to satisfy herself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done. The facts show that the woman did not check that the contractor was competent. Therefore, she has not discharged her duty and is in breach. The breach caused the damage suffered, so she is likely to be liable.
The relevant part of a statute provides: “Transporters of waste are prohibited from releasing any waste except at authorized waste processing facilities, to prevent environmental harm and damage to persons or property along the route of transport.”
A waste transporter was crossing a bridge when one of its sealed containers unexpectedly failed, releasing waste into the river below. A tour boat happened to be crossing under the bridge at the time, and some passengers were splashed with the waste, causing damage to their clothing and skin irritation. The container failed because of a latent defect that could not have been discovered by the transporter. One of the affected boat passengers brought a claim against the waste transporter based on breach of statutory duty.
If the court determines that Parliament intended the statute to give rise to civil claims for violation of the statute, which of the following statements best describes the outcome of the passenger’s claim?
The claim is likely to succeed because the duty imposed by the statute was breached.
The claim is likely to succeed. For a successful claim for breach of statutory duty, the claimant must show that they are within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute and that the harm is of a kind that the statute was intended to prevent. The statutory duty appears to have been imposed in part to protect persons along the route of transport from harm to persons or property caused by the waste. Here, harm was caused to passengers on the boat that was crossing the waste transporter’s path when the waste was released. Despite the unusual circumstances, the statute would likely be deemed to apply to the injury suffered by the claimant here.
A landowner owned premises situated on an industrial estate along with several other manufacturing businesses. Five years ago, having first obtained planning permission, he began to run a small factory manufacturing smoked meat. The smoking process required the factory to emit smoke over several days each week. Six months ago, a householder purchased a house directly next to the factory and moved in to live there. He had the garden landscaped with new trees. Since then the householder noticed that the trees have begun to die. An expert advised that they were being killed by the smoke from the factory. The factory also emits an extremely unpleasant smell which completely prevents the householder from sitting in his garden.
In a claim by the householder against the landowner, which of the following statements is correct?
The householder is likely to have a successful claim in the tort of private nuisance for both the smoke and the smell, provided he can show that the interference with his land is substantial and unreasonable.
The householder may have a nuisance claim. The householder has a proprietary interest in the land concerned and so can bring a claim in private nuisance. The smoke and smell from the factory give rise to a continuing interference with his use and enjoyment of land. The interference is unlawful, provided it is substantial and unreasonable.
A factory owner purchased a new machine from an assembly company. The machine was made by a machine parts company. The machine parts company supplied it to the assembly company disassembled, and the assembly company assembled it at the factory owner’s plant. As soon as the machine was put into use on the production line, it malfunctioned, ruining the materials which it was processing. The materials had to be thrown away, at great expense to the factory owner. A subsequent inspection revealed an obvious defect in the machine which the assembly company ought to have noticed when assembling it. The assembly company has now gone out of business and was uninsured.
In a claim by the factory owner against the machine parts company to recover the cost of the ruined materials, which of the following best describes the likely outcome?
Because the machine was supplied for assembly by the assembly company, the factory owner may not be able to establish that it was owed a duty of care by the machine parts company, and so is not likely to have a successful claim against the machine parts company to recover the cost of the materials.
The factory owner is not likely to have a successful claim. In the tort of negligence, the manufacturer of a product (the machine parts company) owes a duty of care to the consumer (the factory owner) where the product is put into circulation in the form in which it is intended to reach the consumer with no reasonable expectation of an intermediate examination. This is not satisfied on the facts because the product was supplied for assembly by the assembly company. There was a clear expectation of an intermediate examination. So, the machine parts company is unlikely to owe a duty of care to the factory owner.
A woman went to a shop and purchased a screwdriver which she gave to her husband. The first time he used it a fragment of metal flew off and injured his eye. The screwdriver carried no maker’s name, brand, or mark. So, the husband immediately went back to the shop and asked the shop owner to give him details of the manufacturer. The shop owner promised to write to the husband with the details of the manufacturer but then failed to contact him or provide any information.
If the husband seeks to pursue a claim against the shop owner for the injury to his eye under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which of the following statements is correct?
The husband can pursue his claim against the shop owner because they have failed to identify the manufacturer or their own supplier.
The husband can pursue his claim against the shop owner. To pursue a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (‘CPA’), the husband needs to identify a potential defendant. It was not reasonably practicable for the husband to identify the producer of the screwdriver (the manufacturer). He made the request for that information to the supplier (the shop owner) within a reasonable time. The supplier failed to identify the producer, or the person who supplied the product to him. In these circumstances the supplier becomes a potential defendant under the CPA and can be liable for the damage caused by the defective product.
Question
The occupier of a large country estate organises a music festival to raise funds for her favorite charity. The estate has a house with a private walled garden to which no one is permitted access except the occupier. The music festival is held in a very large paddock at a substantial distance away from the house and private garden. Tickets for the music festival are sold to the public and permit entry to the paddock only. A youth wanted to enter the music festival without paying for a ticket. He decided to enter the estate via the private garden so that he could avoid ticket checks on the main gate. He planned to wait there until dark and then walk across the estate to reach the paddock. He successfully entered the private garden but was then injured when he climbed onto a wall which crumbled under his weight.
In an action by the youth against the occupier, which of the following is correct?
The occupier is not likely to be liable to the youth because she did not owe him any duty of care.
The occupier is not likely to be liable to the youth. The youth is not a lawful visitor to the premises; he entered as a trespasser. Persons who are not lawful visitors may be owed a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. However, for a duty to arise, all of the following must be satisfied: the occupier was aware of the danger (or ought reasonably to have been), the occupier was aware that the trespasser might come into the vicinity of the danger (or ought reasonably to have been aware), and the danger was one against which she might reasonably be expected to have offered the trespasser some protection. On the facts, these conditions do not all appear to be satisfied. It is not clear that the occupier knew or ought to have known that the wall was in a dangerous condition. There appears to be no reason why the occupier should expect a trespasser to enter the private garden, since it is nowhere near the festival site. So, on the facts, the occupier is not likely to owe the youth a duty of care.
A manufacturer of insecticides generates very foul-smelling fumes from its plant once per month between the hours of midnight and 3 a.m. When the plant was built many years ago, there were no houses nearby. More recently, a large amount of residential housing has been built around the plant. The manufacturer did investigate whether it would be possible to install machinery to filter the factory emissions but found that this was not possible, and the smells could not be eliminated. Nearby residents have now brought an action for nuisance against the manufacturer, objecting to the presence of the plant in a residential area.
Which of the following statements would be the manufacturer’s best argument to deny liability in nuisance?
The fumes are only emitted once a month, at night.
The manufacturer’s best argument is that the fumes are only emitted once a month, at night. Nuisance is an unlawful interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of land. To be unlawful, the interference must be substantial and unreasonable. One factor in assessing reasonableness is the intensity and duration of the interference. On the facts, a smell emitted once a month, at night, may very well not be a substantial and unreasonable interference.
A man buys a tool from a supplier and gives it to his friend as a birthday present. With the tool is a leaflet from which the friend notes the identity of the manufacturer. The first time the friend uses the tool it breaks. A shard of metal flies off the tool and scratches a piece of furniture in the friend’s home. The friend pays the cost of repairs to the furniture and throws the tool away, as it is no longer fit for use. An expert report shows that the tool suffered from a manufacturing defect rendering it defective and unsafe.
If the friend seeks to make a claim for the damage he suffered, which of the following statements is correct?
The friend should sue the manufacturer in tort, but only for the cost of the repairs to the furniture.
The friend should make a claim in tort against the manufacturer for the cost of repairs to the furniture. He is likely to pursue the claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (‘CPA’). He has suffered damage caused by a defect in a product. The manufacturer is a potential defendant under the CPA, as the producer of the product, and liability is strict. However, this claim will only cover the cost of repairs to the furniture. It will not cover the cost of the tool because damage to the defective product itself is not recoverable under the CPA. The friend could also consider a claim in the tort of negligence. The manufacturer of the product would owe him a duty of care. However, to establish breach of duty it would be necessary to show that the manufacturer fell below a reasonable standard of care. If breach were established, the cost of repairs to the furniture would be recoverable. However, the cost of the tool would not be recoverable because damage to the defective product itself is classed as pure economic loss and is not recoverable.
A woman was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. She survived for two months, during which time she suffered severe pain. She also suffered a loss of wages. She then died as a result of her injuries. Her only living relative is a son aged 16. He is in full time education and was completely financially dependent on her. In her will the woman left her entire estate to her son.
In an action against the defendant, which of the following best explains the damages likely to be recovered against him?
The mother’s estate can recover damages for her pain and suffering and loss of wages up to her death, and the son can recover damages for loss of dependency but cannot recover damages for bereavement.
There are two separate claims against the defendant: a claim by the mother’s estate that survives her death and a claim by the son for dependency damages. The claim by the estate should recover damages for the mother’s pain, suffering, and loss of wages up to her death. The claim for the son should recover damages for his loss of dependency. The son cannot recover damages for his bereavement because the statutory provision for bereavement damages does not apply to a child on the death of a parent.
The owner of a large rural estate was told by an inspector that a footbridge over a ravine on her property had dangerously deteriorated. Because she knew that hikers often crossed her property without permission, she posted a sign near the bridge warning that it was unsafe. A hiker crossing that part of the estate saw the sign but did not see any other way to get across the ravine, so he started to carefully make his way across the footbridge. The footbridge collapsed and the hiker was seriously injured.
What is the likely result if the hiker sues the property owner?
The owner is not liable because she appears to have adequately discharged the duty of care she owed to the hiker.
The owner is not liable. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies because there is no indication that the hiker entered on the premises with the permission of the owner. An occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser provided that (1) she is aware of the danger or ought reasonably to be aware of it, (2) she knows or ought reasonably to know that a trespasser may come into the vicinity of it, and (3) the danger is one against which it would, in all the circumstances, be reasonable to expect her to offer protection. If these conditions are satisfied, the occupier’s duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger. The Act provides that the duty may be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, such as giving warning of the danger concerned or discouraging persons from incurring the risk. On the facts, the owner of the estate likely owed the hiker a duty of care because she was aware that hikers crossed her property. However, she appears to have discharged that duty by posting a warning that the footbridge was unsafe.
A man suffers personal injuries in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. He claims damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, past loss of wages (between the date of the accident and trial), and future loss of earnings.
Which of the following correctly describes the classification of the man’s losses as special or general damages?
Damages for the man’s pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, and future loss of earnings are general damages, while damages for his past loss of wages are special damages.
Special damages are those which can be precisely calculated at the time of trial, while general damages are those which need to be assessed by the court. In this case, only the past loss of wages can be precisely calculated, because it has already occurred prior to the trial. The future loss of earnings needs to be assessed by the court, as does the amount for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.
True or false? For the claim of assault, the element of ‘apprehension of force’ requires the claimant to be afraid of the force.
False
True or false? A claimant who withholds consent to medical treatment necessary to save the claimant’s life may bring a battery action if the treatment is provided anyway.
True
Interfering with the claimant’s possession of goods which does not cause the claimant any actual loss.
Trespass to goods
Interfering with the claimant’s goods based on the mistaken belief that the defendant owned the goods.
Either trespass to goods or conversion
Temporarily immobilising the claimant’s goods.
Trespass to goods
Transferring the claimant’s goods to a third party without authority
Conversion
Hiding the claimant’s goods and then taking possession of them
Both trespass to goods and conversion
The relationship between teachers and pupils gives rise to what type of duty of care?
Established duty.
If someone who is under no duty to aid another person in peril does provide assistance, which of the following best states the duty of the rescuer?
A duty not to make the person’s peril any worse.
Which of the following best states the standard of care that applies to a child defendant?
A reasonable child of the same age as the defendant.
True or false? A novice professional is required to meet the same standard of care as an experienced professional.
True
Question
When the claimant’s damage is caused by one of two alternative causes, what test is used to establish causation-in-fact?
‘But for’ test.
In what type of case is contribution most likely to be available to a defendant who pays more than their share of damages?
An indivisible injuries case.
True or false? The defendant is not liable if the manner in which the claimant’s harm occurs is unforeseeable, even though the type of harm is foreseeable.
False
True or false? The special relationship exception for pure economic loss regarding negligence claims may also apply to claims involving the provision of services.
True.
When a claimant suffers a minor physical injury from the defendant’s negligent conduct and also suffers post-traumatic stress disorder, the latter is characterised as which of the following?
Consequential psychiatric harm.
To recover for pure psychiatric harm, a primary victim needs to establish which of the following?
A medically recognised condition.
Which of the following is true regarding an employer’s workplace duty to employees?
It includes taking reasonable steps to reduce risk of psychiatric harm from stress.
True or false? Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence in an action by an employee against an employer.
True.
True or false? An employer will not be vicariously liable for the torts of an employee unless the employer was negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the employee.
False
Question
True or false? The calculation for loss of future income will be adjusted downward based on the chance the claimant could have lost their job at some future point.
True.
Which of the following is a true statement under the 1957 Act?
There are two ‘reasonableness’ requirements in the duty established by the Act.
True or false? The 1957 Act applies to temporary scaffolding and ladders
True
Which of the following is correct regarding the duty owed to trespassers under the 1984 Act?
The occupier need not be actually aware of the danger for a duty to arise.
Which grounds should a claimant use to recover damages for the cost of a product they purchased from the manufacturer that broke apart due to a defect?
Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Which of the following is a valid defence to a private nuisance action?
The activity causing the nuisance is permitted by statute.
Which of the following is correct regarding remedies for nuisance?
A claimant who establishes a nuisance does not have an automatic right to an injunction
What is the most restrictive requirement of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
The defendant was engaged in a non-natural use of the land.
