1.Easy
To bring a private claim for public nuisance, a claimant must show:
- AThat a criminal conviction has been obtained
- BSpecial damage beyond that suffered by the public in general
- CThat the defendant intended to cause harm
- DAn interest in land next to the place where the nuisance occurs
2.Easy
Which defence applies when the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk of harm?
- AVolenti non fit injuria (consent)
- BContributory negligence
- CNecessity
- DSelf-defence
3.Easy
Under the Defamation Act 2013, the defence of truth requires the defendant to show that:
- AThe statement was on a matter of public interest
- BThe imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true
- CThe defendant honestly and reasonably believed the statement was true
- DEvery single word of the statement is accurate
4.Medium
Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:
- A50%
- B75%
- C10%
- D25%
5.Medium
Under Dutch law, the general provision for liability for unlawful acts (onrechtmatige daad) is:
- AArticle 7:17 BW
- BArticle 3:40 BW
- CArticle 1 of the Constitution
- DArticle 6:162 BW
6.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 for half of the damage
- BLiable, because it did not destroy the beach
- CLiable, because the signs were ignored by many
- DNot liable, because the risk was obvious and voluntarily taken
7.Hard
A "novus actus interveniens" can:
- ATurn a civil claim into a criminal one when the intervening act is an offence
- BCreate a new duty of care
- CIncrease the damages owed
- DBreak the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm
8.Hard
Members of a religious teaching order abused pupils at schools. The brothers were not employees of the order. In Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society, the Supreme Court held the order:
- ANot liable, because the order did not own the schools
- BVicariously liable, as the relationship was akin to employment
- CNot liable, because the brothers were not employees
- DLiable only in contract to the schools
Answer key
- 1. B · Special damage beyond that suffered by the public in general
- 2. A · Volenti non fit injuria (consent)
- 3. B · The imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true
- 4. D · 25%
- 5. D · Article 6:162 BW
- 6. D · Not liable, because the risk was obvious and voluntarily taken
- 7. D · Break the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm
- 8. B · Vicariously liable, as the relationship was akin to employment
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.