Tort law worksheet with answers

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, an occupier must be prepared for children to be:

1. ALess careful than adults
2. BAlways supervised by parents
3. CKept off the premises entirely
4. DAs careful as adults

An employer's duty to provide competent staff, safe equipment, a safe place and a safe system of work is:

1. AA non-delegable duty
2. BA duty that can be passed to any contractor
3. CA duty owed only to managers
4. DA duty that applies only in factories

The phrase "res ipsa loquitur" in negligence means:

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

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

A milkman, forbidden by his employer to give lifts, lets a boy ride on his float to help deliver milk. The boy is injured by the milkman's negligence. In Rose v Plenty, the employer was:

1. AVicariously liable, because the boy was helping with the employer's work
2. BNot liable, because the boy was a trespasser
3. CLiable only if the milkman had no insurance
4. DNot liable, because giving lifts had been expressly forbidden by the employer

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. BNegligent, because firefighters must never take risks
3. CStrictly liable for injuries to employees
4. DNot negligent, because saving life justified the risk

An internal auditor with a grudge against his employer leaks staff payroll data online. In WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants (2020), the Supreme Court held the employer:

1. ANot vicariously liable, as he was pursuing a personal vendetta
2. BVicariously liable, as data breaches are strict liability
3. CLiable only to staff whose data was used for fraud
4. DVicariously liable, as he had access to the data through his job

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