Tort law worksheet with answers

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, an occupier owes lawful visitors:

1. AA duty only to warn of hidden dangers
2. BNo duty unless there is a contract
3. CThe common duty of care
4. DStrict liability for any injury on the premises

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

1. AStrict liability for all acts
2. BNovus actus interveniens
3. CVicarious liability
4. DContributory negligence

In a personal injury claim, "special damages" usually cover:

1. AExtra damages to punish the defendant
2. BCompensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity up to the date of the trial
3. CA nominal sum to mark that a right was infringed
4. DSpecific financial losses up to trial, such as lost earnings and medical costs

Patients are paralysed by anaesthetic contaminated through invisible cracks in glass ampoules, a risk unknown to doctors at the time. Under Roe v Minister of Health, the hospital was:

1. ANot negligent, judged by the knowledge available at the time
2. BNegligent, judged by the medical knowledge available at trial
3. CNegligent, because harm occurred in hospital
4. DStrictly liable for any harm from drugs

A premature baby goes blind. Excess oxygen negligently given was only one of five possible causes. In Wilsher v Essex AHA, the claim:

1. AFailed, because no duty was owed to a baby
2. BSucceeded, because the negligence materially increased the risk of the blindness
3. CFailed, because the claimant could not prove the negligence caused the blindness
4. DSucceeded, with damages reduced by four fifths

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

Residents complain of noise from a motor sports stadium that had been used for years and had planning permission. In Coventry v Lawrence, the Supreme Court held that:

1. ACourts must always grant an injunction where nuisance is proved
2. BPlanning permission was a complete defence to the nuisance claim
3. CComing to the nuisance was a complete defence
4. DPlanning permission was not in itself a defence, and damages instead of an injunction should be considered more flexibly

Police officers arresting a suspect in a busy street knock over an elderly pedestrian. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the Supreme Court held:

1. ANo duty was owed, because the police are immune
2. BA duty arose only because she was a victim of crime
3. CNo duty was owed, as the Caparo test was not met for police operations
4. DA duty was owed, since the police caused harm by a positive act