1.Easy
Which English statute lets dependants of a person killed by a tort claim for their loss of financial support?
- ACompensation Act 2006
- BLaw Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
- COccupiers' Liability Act 1984
- DFatal Accidents Act 1976
2.Easy
Private nuisance concerns:
- ABreaking a contract with a neighbour
- BDamage to personal reputation
- CUnreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land
- DAny loud noise in a public place
3.Easy
In English law, who can normally sue in private nuisance?
- AA person with a right to the land affected, such as an owner or tenant
- BAnyone who lives at the property, including family members and lodgers
- CAny visitor staying at the property
- DOnly the local authority
4.Medium
Police officers who helped at the Hillsborough disaster suffered psychiatric injury. In White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, their claims:
- AFailed, because they were not in physical danger and were not primary victims
- BSucceeded, because they were employees of the defendant
- CSucceeded, because rescuers are always treated as primary victims in English law
- DFailed, because the police can never sue their employer
5.Medium
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:
- AStrictly liable for injuries to employees
- BNot negligent, because saving life justified the risk
- CNegligent, because firefighters must never take risks
- DNegligent, because it used an unsuitable vehicle
6.Medium
Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:
- A75%
- B50%
- C10%
- D25%
7.Hard
A surveyor values a modest house for a mortgage lender, knowing the buyer will rely on it. The report is negligent and contains a disclaimer. In Smith v Eric S Bush, the House of Lords held:
- AThe surveyor owed a duty to the buyer, and the disclaimer failed the reasonableness test
- BThe disclaimer excluded all liability to the buyer
- CThe lender alone could sue the surveyor
- DThe surveyor owed no duty, because the buyer was not the client who commissioned the report
8.Hard
A "novus actus interveniens" can:
- ACreate a new duty of care
- BBreak the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm
- CIncrease the damages owed
- DTurn a civil claim into a criminal one when the intervening act is an offence
Answer key
- 1. D · Fatal Accidents Act 1976
- 2. C · Unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land
- 3. A · A person with a right to the land affected, such as an owner or tenant
- 4. A · Failed, because they were not in physical danger and were not primary victims
- 5. B · Not negligent, because saving life justified the risk
- 6. D · 25%
- 7. A · The surveyor owed a duty to the buyer, and the disclaimer failed the reasonableness test
- 8. B · Break the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the harm
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.