Tort law worksheet with answers

Which three elements must a claimant usually prove in negligence?

1. AFault, punishment and apology
2. BDuty of care, breach of that duty and damage caused by the breach
3. CIntention, motive and harm
4. DContract, breach and loss

Compensatory damages in tort generally aim to:

1. APunish the defendant for the wrongdoing
2. BPut the claimant in the position they would have been in without the tort
3. CDivide the loss equally between the parties
4. DPut the claimant in the position they would have been in if a promise had been kept

The tort of battery is:

1. AMaking a false statement that harms someone's reputation
2. BThe intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person
3. CCarelessly injuring another person on the road
4. DCausing another person to reasonably fear that unlawful force is about to be used

Contractors negligently cut a power cable, damaging the melt in a factory's furnace and stopping further production. In Spartan Steel v Martin, the factory recovered:

1. AOnly the cost of repairing the cable
2. BAll profits lost while the power was off
3. CThe damaged melt and its lost profit, but not profit on further melts
4. DNothing, because all the losses were economic and none was physical damage

Pure economic loss caused by negligent acts is:

1. AAlways recoverable
2. BGenerally not recoverable, with exceptions such as negligent misstatement
3. CRecoverable only for companies
4. DRecoverable only where the defendant's conduct was also a criminal offence of some kind

A worker inhales silica dust from two sources, only one of which was due to the employer's breach. In Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw, the employer was liable because the guilty dust:

1. AWas easier to prevent than the other dust
2. BWas more than half of the total dust
3. CWas the only cause of the disease
4. DMaterially contributed to the disease

A man is prevented from walking along part of a bridge closed for an event, but is free to go back the way he came. In Bird v Jones, the court held:

1. AThere was false imprisonment, because he could not continue the way he wanted to go
2. BThere was false imprisonment, because the bridge was public
3. CThere was an assault, because he was blocked
4. DThere was no false imprisonment, because his freedom was not totally restricted

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 occupiers must guard against all intruders
2. BNot liable, because it had no knowledge of the risk
3. CLiable, because fire spreading is always foreseeable
4. DStrictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher