Tort law worksheet with answers

Which English statute lets dependants of a person killed by a tort claim for their loss of financial support?

1. AOccupiers' Liability Act 1984
2. BFatal Accidents Act 1976
3. CCompensation Act 2006
4. DLaw Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

When two tortfeasors cause the same indivisible damage, the claimant can usually:

1. ARecover only half from each of them
2. BSue only the one who acted first
3. CSue only if both are joined in one claim
4. DRecover the full damages from either of them

The tort of battery is:

1. AThe intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person
2. BMaking a false statement that harms someone's reputation
3. CCarelessly injuring another person on the road
4. DCausing another person to reasonably fear that unlawful force is about to be used

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. ANegligent, judged by the medical knowledge available at trial
2. BNegligent, because harm occurred in hospital
3. CStrictly liable for any harm from drugs
4. DNot negligent, judged by the knowledge available at the time

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

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

In Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, the House of Lords added to the Bolam test that the professional opinion relied on must:

1. ABe capable of withstanding logical analysis
2. BBe held by most doctors in the country
3. CBe written in a medical textbook
4. DBe accepted by the patient

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

Residents complain of noise from a motor sports stadium that had been used for years and had planning permission. In Coventry v Lawrence, the Supreme Court held that:

1. ACourts must always grant an injunction where nuisance is proved
2. BPlanning permission was not in itself a defence, and damages instead of an injunction should be considered more flexibly
3. CPlanning permission was a complete defence to the nuisance claim
4. DComing to the nuisance was a complete defence