1.Easy
To bring a private claim for public nuisance, a claimant must show:
- AAn interest in land next to the place where the nuisance occurs
- BThat the defendant intended to cause harm
- CThat a criminal conviction has been obtained
- DSpecial damage beyond that suffered by the public in general
2.Easy
In English law, is there a general duty to rescue a stranger in danger?
- ANo, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
- BNo, unless the stranger asks for help
- CYes, everyone must try to rescue anyone in danger
- DYes, but only for trained professionals
3.Easy
For a defamation claim, the statement must be defamatory, refer to the claimant, and be:
- ARead by the claimant personally
- BPublished to at least one third party
- CPublished in print or on television
- DRepeated by at least two people
4.Medium
Rylands v Fletcher liability concerns:
- ADefamation in newspapers
- BLiability for any harm caused by careless use of land, even without escape
- CEscape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use
- DMedical negligence
5.Medium
The "but for" test is used to establish:
- AFactual causation
- BThe standard of care
- CDuty of care
- DRemoteness of damage
6.Medium
An occupier hires a reputable lift company to maintain a lift. The company's negligence causes an accident. Under Haseldine v Daw, the occupier is:
- ALiable only if the lift is new
- BLiable for any defect on its premises
- CNot liable, if it reasonably chose a competent contractor
- DLiable, because maintenance is non-delegable
7.Hard
The "eggshell skull" rule means that:
- AOnly foreseeable claimants can sue
- BFragile victims cannot recover damages
- CHead injuries are compensated at a fixed rate
- DThe defendant must take the victim as found, including unusual vulnerabilities
8.Hard
Which statement about the "loss of a chance" doctrine in English medical negligence is correct?
- ALost chances are compensated proportionately, as in claims for lost commercial chances
- BAny lost chance is fully compensated
- CThe doctrine applies only to economic loss in all cases
- DA lost chance of recovery below 50% is generally not compensated (Gregg v Scott)
Answer key
- 1. D · Special damage beyond that suffered by the public in general
- 2. A · No, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
- 3. B · Published to at least one third party
- 4. C · Escape of a dangerous thing brought onto land in a non-natural use
- 5. A · Factual causation
- 6. C · Not liable, if it reasonably chose a competent contractor
- 7. D · The defendant must take the victim as found, including unusual vulnerabilities
- 8. D · A lost chance of recovery below 50% is generally not compensated (Gregg v Scott)
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.