Tort law worksheet with answers

The phrase "res ipsa loquitur" in negligence means:

1. AThe case cannot be decided without expert evidence on the standard of care
2. BThe claimant has voluntarily accepted the risk
3. CThe defendant is strictly liable for any harm
4. DThe facts suggest negligence unless the defendant gives an explanation

How do English courts usually treat a person injured while rescuing someone endangered by the defendant's negligence?

1. AThey can claim only if they are professional rescuers, such as firefighters
2. BThey cannot claim, because they volunteered
3. CThey can usually claim, because rescue is foreseeable
4. DThey can claim only half their damages

An employer's duty to provide competent staff, safe equipment, a safe place and a safe system of work is:

1. AA duty that can be passed to any contractor
2. BA non-delegable duty
3. CA duty that applies only in factories
4. DA duty owed only to managers

In Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, the House of Lords added to the Bolam test that the professional opinion relied on must:

1. ABe accepted by the patient
2. BBe held by most doctors in the country
3. CBe capable of withstanding logical analysis
4. DBe written in a medical textbook

A cricket ball is hit out of a ground very rarely and injures a passer-by. In Bolton v Stone, the club was:

1. ANegligent, because the injury was foreseeable
2. BStrictly liable for anything leaving the ground
3. CNegligent, because it did not stop playing cricket
4. DNot negligent, because the risk was very small

A driver is in a minor collision, suffers no physical injury, but his chronic fatigue illness becomes permanent. In Page v Smith, he could recover because:

1. AThe defendant intended to injure him
2. BPsychiatric injury is always recoverable after any road accident, however minor
3. CHe had a close tie of love with the other driver
4. DHe was a primary victim and personal injury of some kind was foreseeable

Fumes from a copper smelting works damage trees and shrubs on a nearby estate in an industrial area. In St Helen's Smelting v Tipping, the House of Lords held:

1. AThere was no nuisance, because the character of the industrial area excused the fumes and the damage
2. BThere was a nuisance only if the fumes were noisy
3. CThe character of the locality was irrelevant, because there was physical damage to property
4. DThe claimant came to the nuisance, so lost

Intruders start a fire in an empty, locked cinema, which spreads to neighbouring buildings. The owner did not know of earlier break-ins. In Smith v Littlewoods, the owner was:

1. ALiable, because fire spreading is always foreseeable
2. BLiable, because occupiers must guard against all intruders
3. CStrictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher
4. DNot liable, because it had no knowledge of the risk