Tort law worksheet with answers

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

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

In a personal injury claim, "special damages" usually cover:

1. AExtra damages to punish the defendant
2. BA nominal sum to mark that a right was infringed
3. CCompensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity up to the date of the trial
4. DSpecific financial losses up to trial, such as lost earnings and medical costs

Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless:

1. AIt was published in a newspaper or online
2. BIt has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation
3. CThe claimant has lost money because of it
4. DThe defendant intended to harm the claimant or was reckless as to whether it would

A premature baby goes blind. Excess oxygen negligently given was only one of five possible causes. In Wilsher v Essex AHA, the claim:

1. AFailed, because the claimant could not prove the negligence caused the blindness
2. BSucceeded, because the negligence materially increased the risk of the blindness
3. CFailed, because no duty was owed to a baby
4. DSucceeded, with damages reduced by four fifths

A doctor builds a consulting room next to a confectioner whose noisy machines had operated for years without complaint. Can the confectioner defend a nuisance claim by saying the doctor "came to the nuisance"?

1. AYes, the doctor accepted the noise by building there
2. BNo, because doctors have special protection
3. CNo, coming to the nuisance is not a defence
4. DYes, because the machines were used first

A house is built on defective foundations, approved by the local authority. Cracks appear and the owner sells at a loss. In Murphy v Brentwood DC, the loss was:

1. ARecoverable only against the buyer
2. BPhysical damage, fully recoverable
3. CRecoverable because the council approved the plans
4. DPure economic loss, not recoverable in negligence

After Barker v Corus held that liability under the Fairchild exception was proportionate to each defendant's share of the risk, Parliament responded for mesothelioma cases by:

1. AMaking each responsible person liable for the whole damage, under the Compensation Act 2006
2. BRequiring proof of "but for" causation in all cases
3. CAbolishing claims for asbestos disease
4. DCreating a state compensation fund to replace tort claims against employers and their insurers entirely

A man's leg is injured by a negligent driver. Later, robbers shoot the same leg and it is amputated. In Baker v Willoughby, the driver:

1. AWas liable only until the shooting
2. BWas liable for the amputation too
3. CWas released completely from liability by the robbers' later shooting
4. DRemained liable for the original disability after the shooting