Tort law worksheet with answers

Which defence applies when the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk of harm?

1. ANecessity
2. BVolenti non fit injuria (consent)
3. CSelf-defence
4. DContributory negligence

The phrase "res ipsa loquitur" in negligence means:

1. AThe facts suggest negligence unless the defendant gives an explanation
2. BThe claimant has voluntarily accepted the risk
3. CThe case cannot be decided without expert evidence on the standard of care
4. DThe defendant is strictly liable for any harm

To bring a private claim for public nuisance, a claimant must show:

1. ASpecial damage beyond that suffered by the public in general
2. BThat the defendant intended to cause harm
3. CAn interest in land next to the place where the nuisance occurs
4. DThat a criminal conviction has been obtained

Contractors negligently cut a power cable, damaging the melt in a factory's furnace and stopping further production. In Spartan Steel v Martin, the factory recovered:

1. AOnly the cost of repairing the cable
2. BAll profits lost while the power was off
3. CThe damaged melt and its lost profit, but not profit on further melts
4. DNothing, because all the losses were economic and none was physical damage

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

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

The "eggshell skull" rule means that:

1. AFragile victims cannot recover damages
2. BHead injuries are compensated at a fixed rate
3. CThe defendant must take the victim as found, including unusual vulnerabilities
4. DOnly foreseeable claimants can sue

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. BLiable only if it had trained him poorly
3. CNot liable, because violence was not part of his job
4. DVicariously liable, as the assault was closely connected to his job of serving customers