1.Easy
Wrongfully dealing with another person's goods in a way that denies their rights, such as selling them, is the tort of:
- ABattery
- BPassing off
- CNuisance
- DConversion
2.Easy
False imprisonment is:
- AWrongly reporting someone to the police
- BUnlawfully and completely restricting a person's freedom of movement
- CBlocking one of several routes a person wants to take, however briefly
- DRefusing to let someone enter your house
3.Easy
Which defence applies when the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk of harm?
- ANecessity
- BContributory negligence
- CVolenti non fit injuria (consent)
- DSelf-defence
4.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:
- AOnly the police could deal with the noise
- BHis malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
- CMusic lessons are themselves a nuisance
- DIntention is irrelevant in nuisance, so his motive could not affect the claim
5.Medium
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:
- ALiable, because the signs were ignored by many
- BNot liable, because the risk was obvious and voluntarily taken
- CLiable for half of the damage
- DLiable, because it did not destroy the beach
6.Medium
The Bolam test applies to:
- AOccupiers' liability to trespassers
- BThe remoteness of damage
- CDefamation defences
- DThe standard of care expected of professionals such as doctors
7.Hard
A police officer, without arresting her, takes hold of a woman's arm to stop her walking away so she can be questioned. In Collins v Wilcock:
- AThis was lawful, as police may restrain anyone they wish to question
- BThis was lawful, because she was suspected
- CThis was a battery, as it went beyond acceptable everyday contact
- DThis was only an assault, as no harm was done
8.Hard
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:
- AThere was a nuisance only if the fumes were noisy
- BThe character of the locality was irrelevant, because there was physical damage to property
- CThere was no nuisance, because the character of the industrial area excused the fumes and the damage
- DThe claimant came to the nuisance, so lost
Answer key
- 1. D · Conversion
- 2. B · Unlawfully and completely restricting a person's freedom of movement
- 3. C · Volenti non fit injuria (consent)
- 4. B · His malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
- 5. B · Not liable, because the risk was obvious and voluntarily taken
- 6. D · The standard of care expected of professionals such as doctors
- 7. C · This was a battery, as it went beyond acceptable everyday contact
- 8. B · The character of the locality was irrelevant, because there was physical damage to property
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.