Tort law worksheet with answers

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

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

In English law, is there a general duty to rescue a stranger in danger?

1. AYes, but only for trained professionals
2. BNo, unless the stranger asks for help
3. CNo, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
4. DYes, everyone must try to rescue anyone in danger

An employer can be liable for torts committed by an employee during their work. This is called:

1. AStrict liability for all acts
2. BContributory negligence
3. CNovus actus interveniens
4. DVicarious liability

Pure economic loss caused by negligent acts is:

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

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. CMaterially contributed to the disease
4. DWas the only cause of the disease

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 capable of withstanding logical analysis
3. CBe written in a medical textbook
4. DBe held by most doctors in the country

A tall new building blocks television reception for many nearby homes. In Hunter v Canary Wharf, the House of Lords held:

1. AThere was a nuisance, but only the council could sue
2. BThere was no nuisance, as nuisance requires noise
3. CThere was no actionable nuisance, and only those with an interest in land could sue
4. DThere was a nuisance, and all residents, including family members and lodgers, could sue

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