Tort law worksheet with answers

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

1. AThe public interest defence
2. BThe defence of honest opinion
3. CAbsolute privilege
4. DQualified privilege

Trespass to land means:

1. AEntering or remaining on another's land without permission
2. BBuilding a house on your own land
3. CSelling land without a contract
4. DMaking noise on your own land

Private nuisance concerns:

1. AUnreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land
2. BAny loud noise in a public place
3. CBreaking a contract with a neighbour
4. DDamage to personal reputation

A firefighter is injured by a heavy jack in an unsuitable lorry rushed to rescue a woman trapped under a vehicle. Under Watt v Hertfordshire CC, the fire authority was:

1. ANegligent, because it used an unsuitable vehicle
2. BStrictly liable for injuries to employees
3. CNegligent, because firefighters must never take risks
4. DNot negligent, because saving life justified the risk

In Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, the House of Lords added to the Bolam test that the professional opinion relied on must:

1. ABe capable of withstanding logical analysis
2. BBe accepted by the patient
3. CBe written in a medical textbook
4. DBe held by most doctors in the country

The Wagon Mound case concerns which issue?

1. ADirectness: a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of the breach
2. BStrict liability for animals
3. CRemoteness: only reasonably foreseeable types of damage are recoverable
4. DDuty of care to unborn children

In the Dutch "relativity" requirement (Article 6:163 BW), a claim fails if:

1. AThe damage exceeds a fixed amount
2. BThe defendant did not foresee the precise way in which the damage to the claimant would come about
3. CThe claimant did not hire a lawyer
4. DThe norm that was broken does not aim to protect the claimant against the damage suffered

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. AThey could recover because they witnessed the death
2. BThe hospital owed them no duty as secondary victims
3. COnly their mother could claim for their shock
4. DThey were primary victims of the hospital's negligence