1.Easy
Compensatory damages in tort generally aim to:
- ADivide the loss equally between the parties
- BPunish the defendant for the wrongdoing
- CPut the claimant in the position they would have been in if a promise had been kept
- DPut the claimant in the position they would have been in without the tort
2.Easy
Under Part I of the UK Consumer Protection Act 1987, liability for a defective product is:
- AFault-based, so the claimant must prove negligence
- BLimited to products bought directly from the producer
- CStrict, so the claimant need not prove the producer was at fault
- DOnly available if there is a contract with the producer of the product
3.Easy
Defamation protects a person's:
- APrivacy of medical records only
- BProperty
- CPhysical safety
- DReputation
4.Medium
The "but for" test is used to establish:
- AThe standard of care
- BFactual causation
- CDuty of care
- DRemoteness of damage
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
- BNegligent, because it used an unsuitable vehicle
- CNot negligent, because saving life justified the risk
- DNegligent, because firefighters must never take risks
6.Medium
A surgeon fails to warn a patient of a small risk of a serious complication. The patient would have had the operation anyway, but later. The risk materialises. In Chester v Afshar, the House of Lords held:
- AThe surgeon was liable, modifying normal causation principles
- BThe surgeon was not liable, as the "but for" test failed
- CThe patient consented, so there was no claim
- DThe surgeon was liable only for the cost of the operation
7.Hard
A mother arrives at hospital about two hours after a road accident and sees her family injured and covered in blood. In McLoughlin v O'Brian, she:
- ACould not recover, as she was only told about it
- BCould recover only for financial losses
- CCould recover, as she saw the immediate aftermath
- DCould not recover, as she was not at the scene
8.Hard
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:
- AVicariously liable, as he had access to the data through his job
- BVicariously liable, as data breaches are strict liability
- CNot vicariously liable, as he was pursuing a personal vendetta
- DLiable only to staff whose data was used for fraud
Answer key
- 1. D · Put the claimant in the position they would have been in without the tort
- 2. C · Strict, so the claimant need not prove the producer was at fault
- 3. D · Reputation
- 4. B · Factual causation
- 5. C · Not negligent, because saving life justified the risk
- 6. A · The surgeon was liable, modifying normal causation principles
- 7. C · Could recover, as she saw the immediate aftermath
- 8. C · Not vicariously liable, as he was pursuing a personal vendetta
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.