Tort law worksheet with answers

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

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

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, an occupier owes lawful visitors:

1. ANo duty unless there is a contract
2. BThe common duty of care
3. CA duty only to warn of hidden dangers
4. DStrict liability for any injury on the premises

Under Part I of the UK Consumer Protection Act 1987, liability for a defective product is:

1. AFault-based, so the claimant must prove negligence
2. BStrict, so the claimant need not prove the producer was at fault
3. CLimited to products bought directly from the producer
4. DOnly available if there is a contract with the producer of the product

Auditors negligently certify a company's accounts. An investor relies on them to buy more shares and suffers loss. In Caparo v Dickman, the auditors:

1. AOwed a duty because the investor was a shareholder
2. BOwed no duty to the investor for this purpose
3. CWere strictly liable for errors in the accounts
4. DOwed a duty to anyone relying on the accounts

A young man dives into a shallow lake in a public park despite warning signs and is paralysed. In Tomlinson v Congleton BC, the council was:

1. ALiable, because the signs were ignored by many
2. BNot liable, because the risk was obvious and voluntarily taken
3. CLiable, because it did not destroy the beach
4. DLiable for half of the damage

Police officers who helped at the Hillsborough disaster suffered psychiatric injury. In White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, their claims:

1. ASucceeded, because rescuers are always treated as primary victims in English law
2. BFailed, because they were not in physical danger and were not primary victims
3. CFailed, because the police can never sue their employer
4. DSucceeded, because they were employees of the defendant

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

In the Dutch "relativity" requirement (Article 6:163 BW), a claim fails if:

1. AThe claimant did not hire a lawyer
2. BThe norm that was broken does not aim to protect the claimant against the damage suffered
3. CThe damage exceeds a fixed amount
4. DThe defendant did not foresee the precise way in which the damage to the claimant would come about