Tort law worksheet with answers

Free printable Tort law worksheet: 8 problems from easy to exam level, with an answer key. Print it or save it as a PDF.

New worksheetPractise online with hints

For teachers: free to print, copy and use in class. Every new worksheet has new values and its own answer key. A link to ExamProblems on your course page is appreciated.

Name: ____________________   Date: ____________

1.Easy

Wrongfully dealing with another person's goods in a way that denies their rights, such as selling them, is the tort of:

  1. ANuisance
  2. BBattery
  3. CConversion
  4. DPassing off
2.Easy

Defamation protects a person's:

  1. AReputation
  2. BPrivacy of medical records only
  3. CPhysical safety
  4. DProperty
3.Easy

Donoghue v Stevenson is famous for:

  1. AEstablishing the "neighbour principle" for a general duty of care
  2. BEstablishing that manufacturers are liable only to those they contract with
  3. CDefining murder
  4. DEstablishing EU supremacy
4.Medium

A premature baby goes blind. Excess oxygen negligently given was only one of five possible causes. In Wilsher v Essex AHA, the claim:

  1. ASucceeded, with damages reduced by four fifths
  2. BFailed, because the claimant could not prove the negligence caused the blindness
  3. CFailed, because no duty was owed to a baby
  4. DSucceeded, because the negligence materially increased the risk of the blindness
5.Medium

Two chimney sweeps die from fumes while sealing a chimney, despite warnings about the danger. In Roles v Nathan, the occupier was:

  1. ALiable, because occupiers must make premises completely safe for every visitor, including specialists
  2. BNot liable, because specialists can be expected to guard against risks of their trade
  3. CNot liable, because the sweeps were trespassers
  4. DLiable, because the warnings were given orally
6.Medium

Workmen leave an open manhole with paraffin lamps. A boy knocks a lamp in, causing an unexpected explosion and burns. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the defendants were:

  1. ANot liable, because the explosion was unforeseeable
  2. BLiable, because burns were a foreseeable type of harm
  3. CLiable only for half of the damage
  4. DNot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
7.Hard

In Lachaux v Independent Print (2019), the Supreme Court held that "serious harm" under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 must be shown:

  1. ABy reference to the actual impact of the statement, as a matter of fact
  2. BOnly by the inherent meaning of the words
  3. CBy the number of people who read it, which must exceed a fixed threshold
  4. DOnly by showing the claimant lost money
8.Hard

A "novus actus interveniens" can:

  1. ATurn a civil claim into a criminal one when the intervening act is an offence
  2. BIncrease the damages owed
  3. CBreak the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm
  4. DCreate a new duty of care

Answer key

  1. 1. C · Conversion
  2. 2. A · Reputation
  3. 3. A · Establishing the "neighbour principle" for a general duty of care
  4. 4. B · Failed, because the claimant could not prove the negligence caused the blindness
  5. 5. B · Not liable, because specialists can be expected to guard against risks of their trade
  6. 6. B · Liable, because burns were a foreseeable type of harm
  7. 7. A · By reference to the actual impact of the statement, as a matter of fact
  8. 8. C · Break the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm

Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.