1.Easy
In negligence, the standard of care is usually that of:
- AThe reasonable person in the defendant's position
- BThe defendant's own personal best
- CThe claimant's expectations
- DA perfect expert in every case
2.Easy
When two tortfeasors cause the same indivisible damage, the claimant can usually:
- ASue only if both are joined in one claim
- BRecover the full damages from either of them
- CSue only the one who acted first
- DRecover only half from each of them
3.Easy
In England and Wales, a negligence claim for personal injury must usually be started within:
- AThree years of the injury or the date of knowledge
- BTwelve years of the injury
- COne year of the injury
- DSix years of the injury
4.Medium
Strict liability means a defendant can be liable:
- AOnly if they acted intentionally
- BOnly if they broke a contract
- COnly for criminal acts
- DWithout proof of fault
5.Medium
A man bangs trays and shouts every time his neighbour, a music teacher, gives lessons, purely to annoy her. In Christie v Davey, the court held:
- AMusic lessons are themselves a nuisance
- BIntention is irrelevant in nuisance, so his motive could not affect the claim
- CHis malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
- DOnly the police could deal with the noise
6.Medium
The Wagon Mound case concerns which issue?
- ADuty of care to unborn children
- BRemoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
- CStrict liability for animals
- DDirectness: a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of the breach
7.Hard
A bank requires job applicants to have medical examinations by a self-employed doctor, who abuses some of them. In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants (2020), the Supreme Court held the bank:
- ANot vicariously liable, as the doctor was an independent contractor running his own business
- BVicariously liable, as the relationship was akin to employment and the bank benefited from his work
- CStrictly liable for any harm to applicants
- DVicariously liable, because it chose the doctor
8.Hard
After drinking together for hours, a man agrees to fly with an obviously very drunk pilot, and the plane crashes. In Morris v Murray, the passenger's claim:
- AFailed, because he voluntarily accepted the risk
- BSucceeded, because volenti never applies to passengers
- CSucceeded, with damages reduced for contributory negligence
- DFailed, because of illegality
Answer key
- 1. A · The reasonable person in the defendant's position
- 2. B · Recover the full damages from either of them
- 3. A · Three years of the injury or the date of knowledge
- 4. D · Without proof of fault
- 5. C · His malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
- 6. B · Remoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
- 7. A · Not vicariously liable, as the doctor was an independent contractor running his own business
- 8. A · Failed, because he voluntarily accepted the risk
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.