Tort law worksheet with answers

How do English courts usually treat a person injured while rescuing someone endangered by the defendant's negligence?

1. AThey can usually claim, because rescue is foreseeable
2. BThey cannot claim, because they volunteered
3. CThey can claim only half their damages
4. DThey can claim only if they are professional rescuers, such as firefighters

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

1. ABattery
2. BConversion
3. CPassing off
4. DNuisance

Under Part I of the UK Consumer Protection Act 1987, liability for a defective product is:

1. ALimited to products bought directly from the producer
2. BFault-based, so the claimant must prove negligence
3. COnly available if there is a contract with the producer of the product
4. DStrict, so the claimant need not prove the producer was at fault

Under Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, a doctor must inform a patient about:

1. AMaterial risks of treatment and reasonable alternatives
2. BNothing, unless the patient asks
3. COnly the risks other doctors would usually mention
4. DEvery possible risk, however remote

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

A cricket ball is hit out of a ground very rarely and injures a passer-by. In Bolton v Stone, the club was:

1. ANegligent, because the injury was foreseeable
2. BNegligent, because it did not stop playing cricket
3. CNot negligent, because the risk was very small
4. DStrictly liable for anything leaving the ground

After a workplace injury weakens his leg, a man walks down steep stairs with no handrail while carrying a child, his leg gives way, and he jumps and breaks his ankle. In McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts:

1. AHis unreasonable conduct broke the chain of causation
2. BThe employer was liable for half of the ankle injury
3. CThe employer was liable for the ankle injury as a foreseeable result
4. DThe stairs' owner was solely liable

After drinking together for hours, a man agrees to fly with an obviously very drunk pilot, and the plane crashes. In Morris v Murray, the passenger's claim:

1. AFailed, because of illegality
2. BFailed, because he voluntarily accepted the risk
3. CSucceeded, with damages reduced for contributory negligence
4. DSucceeded, because volenti never applies to passengers