Tort law worksheet with answers

Wrongfully dealing with another person's goods in a way that denies their rights, such as selling them, is the tort of:

1. ANuisance
2. BPassing off
3. CBattery
4. DConversion

The tort of battery is:

1. ACausing another person to reasonably fear that unlawful force is about to be used
2. BMaking a false statement that harms someone's reputation
3. CThe intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person
4. DCarelessly injuring another person on the road

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

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

The Caparo test for a new duty of care requires:

1. AA contract between the parties, a breach of its terms and loss flowing directly from the breach
2. BForeseeability of harm, proximity and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
3. CIntention, motive and damage
4. DProof of criminal conduct

Auditors negligently certify a company's accounts. An investor relies on them to buy more shares and suffers loss. In Caparo v Dickman, the auditors:

1. AOwed a duty because the investor was a shareholder
2. BOwed no duty to the investor for this purpose
3. COwed a duty to anyone relying on the accounts
4. DWere strictly liable for errors in the accounts

Two 15-year-old girls fence with plastic rulers and one is injured in the eye. Under Mullin v Richards, the defendant's conduct is judged by the standard of:

1. AA reasonable adult
2. BA reasonable teacher
3. CThe defendant's own understanding
4. DA reasonable 15-year-old

Two children see their father collapse and die from a heart attack, long after a hospital negligently failed to diagnose his heart disease. In Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (2024), the Supreme Court held that:

1. AOnly their mother could claim for their shock
2. BThey could recover because they witnessed the death
3. CThey were primary victims of the hospital's negligence
4. DThe hospital owed them no duty as secondary victims

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