Tort law worksheet with answers

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

1. AKept off the premises entirely
2. BLess careful than adults
3. CAs careful as adults
4. DAlways supervised by parents

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

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

Statements made by MPs during debates in the UK Parliament are protected in defamation by:

1. AQualified privilege
2. BThe public interest defence
3. CAbsolute privilege
4. DThe defence of honest opinion

Police officers who helped at the Hillsborough disaster suffered psychiatric injury. In White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, their claims:

1. AFailed, because they were not in physical danger and were not primary victims
2. BSucceeded, because rescuers are always treated as primary victims in English law
3. CSucceeded, because they were employees of the defendant
4. DFailed, because the police can never sue their employer

Two chimney sweeps die from fumes while sealing a chimney, despite warnings about the danger. In Roles v Nathan, the occupier was:

1. ANot liable, because the sweeps were trespassers
2. BLiable, because the warnings were given orally
3. CNot liable, because specialists can be expected to guard against risks of their trade
4. DLiable, because occupiers must make premises completely safe for every visitor, including specialists

An employer does not give goggles to a worker already blind in one eye, who loses his good eye at work. Under Paris v Stepney BC, the employer was:

1. AStrictly liable for all eye injuries
2. BNot negligent, because goggles were not normally provided
3. CNegligent, because the possible harm to this worker was very serious
4. DNot negligent, because the risk of an accident was the same for all workers

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

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:

1. ALiable only in contract to the schools
2. BVicariously liable, as the relationship was akin to employment
3. CNot liable, because the order did not own the schools
4. DNot liable, because the brothers were not employees