Tort law worksheet with answers

The defence of necessity in tort may justify an act when:

1. AIt was reasonably necessary to prevent greater harm to people or property
2. BThe defendant was in a hurry
3. CThe act was necessary to protect the defendant's business profits from foreseeable loss
4. DThe claimant was rude to the defendant

An employer's duty to provide competent staff, safe equipment, a safe place and a safe system of work is:

1. AA non-delegable duty
2. BA duty owed only to managers
3. CA duty that can be passed to any contractor
4. DA duty that applies only in factories

For a defamation claim, the statement must be defamatory, refer to the claimant, and be:

1. APublished to at least one third party
2. BPublished in print or on television
3. CRepeated by at least two people
4. DRead by the claimant personally

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

Under Dutch law, the general provision for liability for unlawful acts (onrechtmatige daad) is:

1. AArticle 1 of the Constitution
2. BArticle 3:40 BW
3. CArticle 7:17 BW
4. DArticle 6:162 BW

Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:

1. A50%
2. B75%
3. C25%
4. D10%

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

A petrol station kiosk attendant racially abuses a customer, follows him outside and assaults him. In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets, the employer was:

1. ANot liable, because the assault took place outside the kiosk and after the conversation ended
2. BNot liable, because violence was not part of his job
3. CVicariously liable, as the assault was closely connected to his job of serving customers
4. DLiable only if it had trained him poorly