Tort law worksheet with answers

An employer can be liable for torts committed by an employee during their work. This is called:

1. AStrict liability for all acts
2. BContributory negligence
3. CNovus actus interveniens
4. DVicarious liability

For a defamation claim, the statement must be defamatory, refer to the claimant, and be:

1. ARead by the claimant personally
2. BRepeated by at least two people
3. CPublished to at least one third party
4. DPublished in print or on television

Defamation protects a person's:

1. AProperty
2. BReputation
3. CPrivacy of medical records only
4. DPhysical safety

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. BNot negligent, because the risk of an accident was the same for all workers
3. CNegligent, because the possible harm to this worker was very serious
4. DNot negligent, because goggles were not normally provided

A council leaves an abandoned boat on its land. Two boys jack it up to repair it, and it falls and injures one. In Jolley v Sutton LBC, the council was:

1. ANot liable, because the boys' exact actions were unforeseeable
2. BNot liable, because repairs are not play
3. CLiable only to the boy who used the jack
4. DLiable, because the broad type of accident was foreseeable

Patients are paralysed by anaesthetic contaminated through invisible cracks in glass ampoules, a risk unknown to doctors at the time. Under Roe v Minister of Health, the hospital was:

1. ANot negligent, judged by the knowledge available at the time
2. BNegligent, because harm occurred in hospital
3. CNegligent, judged by the medical knowledge available at trial
4. DStrictly liable for any harm from drugs

A worker gets dermatitis from brick dust. The employer did not provide washing facilities, but science could not show that washing would have prevented it. In McGhee v National Coal Board:

1. AThe employer was liable, because its breach materially increased the risk
2. BThe employer was not liable, because the "but for" test could not be satisfied
3. CThe worker was barred by consenting to the risk
4. DThe employer was liable for half the damages only

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 the ankle injury as a foreseeable result
3. CThe stairs' owner was solely liable
4. DThe employer was liable for half of the ankle injury