Tort law worksheet with answers

The defence of necessity in tort may justify an act when:

1. AIt was reasonably necessary to prevent greater harm to people or property
2. BThe act was necessary to protect the defendant's business profits from foreseeable loss
3. CThe claimant was rude to the defendant
4. DThe defendant was in a hurry

Which three elements must a claimant usually prove in negligence?

1. AIntention, motive and harm
2. BContract, breach and loss
3. CFault, punishment and apology
4. DDuty of care, breach of that duty and damage caused by the breach

In general, a person who hires an independent contractor is:

1. ALiable only if the contractor has no insurance
2. BLiable for all torts committed in the same year
3. CNot vicariously liable for the contractor's torts
4. DAlways vicariously liable for the contractor's torts

A firefighter is injured by a heavy jack in an unsuitable lorry rushed to rescue a woman trapped under a vehicle. Under Watt v Hertfordshire CC, the fire authority was:

1. ANegligent, because it used an unsuitable vehicle
2. BNot negligent, because saving life justified the risk
3. CNegligent, because firefighters must never take risks
4. DStrictly liable for injuries to employees

Two 15-year-old girls fence with plastic rulers and one is injured in the eye. Under Mullin v Richards, the defendant's conduct is judged by the standard of:

1. AA reasonable 15-year-old
2. BA reasonable adult
3. CThe defendant's own understanding
4. DA reasonable teacher

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. ALiable, because burns were a foreseeable type of harm
2. BNot liable, because the explosion was unforeseeable
3. CNot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
4. DLiable only for half of the damage

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

A woman's 999 call is wrongly graded, and the police arrive too late to stop her former partner killing her. In Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, the Supreme Court held:

1. AThe call handler alone was personally liable
2. BThe police owed no duty in negligence to protect her
3. CThe police were strictly liable for the delay
4. DThe police owed a duty because they took the call