Tort law worksheet with answers

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

1. AVicarious liability
2. BContributory negligence
3. CStrict liability for all acts
4. DNovus actus interveniens

In general, a person who hires an independent contractor is:

1. ALiable for all torts committed in the same year
2. BLiable only if the contractor has no insurance
3. CAlways vicariously liable for the contractor's torts
4. DNot vicariously liable for the contractor's torts

How do English courts usually treat a person injured while rescuing someone endangered by the defendant's negligence?

1. AThey cannot claim, because they volunteered
2. BThey can claim only half their damages
3. CThey can claim only if they are professional rescuers, such as firefighters
4. DThey can usually claim, because rescue is foreseeable

The Wagon Mound case concerns which issue?

1. ARemoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
2. BDuty of care to unborn children
3. CStrict liability for animals
4. DDirectness: a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of the breach

Heat from a neighbour's ordinary activity damages specially sensitive paper stored by the claimant, but would not harm ordinary paper. Under Robinson v Kilvert, the claim:

1. AFails, because heat cannot be a nuisance
2. BSucceeds, because the paper was valuable
3. CFails, because nuisance does not protect abnormally sensitive uses
4. DSucceeds, because any physical damage to goods is an actionable nuisance

A cricket ball is hit out of a ground very rarely and injures a passer-by. In Bolton v Stone, the club was:

1. ANegligent, because it did not stop playing cricket
2. BNot negligent, because the risk was very small
3. CStrictly liable for anything leaving the ground
4. DNegligent, because the injury was foreseeable

A tannery spills small amounts of solvent over many years. It seeps underground and contaminates a water company's borehole, which nobody could have foreseen. In Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather:

1. AThe water company was barred by contributory negligence
2. BThe tannery was liable, because Rylands liability is strict and needs no foreseeability
3. CThe tannery was liable in negligence instead
4. DThe tannery was not liable, because the type of damage was not foreseeable

Which statement about the "loss of a chance" doctrine in English medical negligence is correct?

1. AThe doctrine applies only to economic loss in all cases
2. BA lost chance of recovery below 50% is generally not compensated (Gregg v Scott)
3. CLost chances are compensated proportionately, as in claims for lost commercial chances
4. DAny lost chance is fully compensated