Tort law worksheet with answers

In England and Wales, a negligence claim for personal injury must usually be started within:

1. AOne year of the injury
2. BSix years of the injury
3. CTwelve years of the injury
4. DThree years of the injury or the date of knowledge

What is the usual remedy for an ongoing private nuisance?

1. AA fine payable to the state
2. BAn apology ordered by the court
3. CRescission
4. DAn injunction

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, an occupier must be prepared for children to be:

1. ALess careful than adults
2. BAs careful as adults
3. CKept off the premises entirely
4. DAlways supervised by parents

The Caparo test for a new duty of care requires:

1. AProof of criminal conduct
2. BIntention, motive and damage
3. CA contract between the parties, a breach of its terms and loss flowing directly from the breach
4. DForeseeability of harm, proximity and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

A five-year-old falls into a trench on open land while playing without an adult. In Phipps v Rochester Corporation, the occupier was:

1. ALiable, because young children must be protected from every danger on the land
2. BNot liable, because it could expect parents to supervise very young children
3. CNot liable, because the child was a trespasser
4. DLiable, because the trench was not fenced

Rylands v Fletcher liability concerns:

1. ALiability for any harm caused by careless use of land, even without escape
2. BDefamation in newspapers
3. CEscape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use
4. DMedical negligence

Intruders start a fire in an empty, locked cinema, which spreads to neighbouring buildings. The owner did not know of earlier break-ins. In Smith v Littlewoods, the owner was:

1. AStrictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher
2. BLiable, because occupiers must guard against all intruders
3. CLiable, because fire spreading is always foreseeable
4. DNot liable, because it had no knowledge of the risk

A surveyor values a modest house for a mortgage lender, knowing the buyer will rely on it. The report is negligent and contains a disclaimer. In Smith v Eric S Bush, the House of Lords held:

1. AThe surveyor owed no duty, because the buyer was not the client who commissioned the report
2. BThe lender alone could sue the surveyor
3. CThe surveyor owed a duty to the buyer, and the disclaimer failed the reasonableness test
4. DThe disclaimer excluded all liability to the buyer