1.Easy
Private nuisance concerns:
- ADamage to personal reputation
- BUnreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land
- CBreaking a contract with a neighbour
- DAny loud noise in a public place
2.Easy
In English law, is there a general duty to rescue a stranger in danger?
- AYes, but only for trained professionals
- BNo, unless the stranger asks for help
- CNo, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
- DYes, everyone must try to rescue anyone in danger
3.Easy
Compensatory damages in tort generally aim to:
- APunish the defendant for the wrongdoing
- BDivide the loss equally between the parties
- CPut the claimant in the position they would have been in if a promise had been kept
- DPut the claimant in the position they would have been in without the tort
4.Medium
Rylands v Fletcher liability concerns:
- AEscape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use
- BDefamation in newspapers
- CLiability for any harm caused by careless use of land, even without escape
- DMedical negligence
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
- BOnly the police could deal with the noise
- CIntention is irrelevant in nuisance, so his motive could not affect the claim
- DHis malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
6.Medium
The Bolam test applies to:
- AOccupiers' liability to trespassers
- BThe standard of care expected of professionals such as doctors
- CThe remoteness of damage
- DDefamation defences
7.Hard
The "eggshell skull" rule means that:
- AThe defendant must take the victim as found, including unusual vulnerabilities
- BFragile victims cannot recover damages
- COnly foreseeable claimants can sue
- DHead injuries are compensated at a fixed rate
8.Hard
Young offenders escape while their officers sleep, and damage a yacht nearby. In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co, the House of Lords held:
- ANo duty, because the Home Office is part of the Crown
- BA duty could be owed, because the officers had control over the offenders
- CNo duty, because the damage was done by third parties acting of their own free will
- DThe yacht owner was contributorily negligent
Answer key
- 1. B · Unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land
- 2. C · No, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
- 3. D · Put the claimant in the position they would have been in without the tort
- 4. A · Escape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use
- 5. D · His malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
- 6. B · The standard of care expected of professionals such as doctors
- 7. A · The defendant must take the victim as found, including unusual vulnerabilities
- 8. B · A duty could be owed, because the officers had control over the offenders
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.