Tort law worksheet with answers

In England and Wales, a negligence claim for personal injury must usually be started within:

1. AOne year of the injury
2. BSix years of the injury
3. CThree years of the injury or the date of knowledge
4. DTwelve years of the injury

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. CRecover the full damages from either of them
4. DSue only if both are joined in one claim

Private nuisance concerns:

1. ABreaking a contract with a neighbour
2. BDamage to personal reputation
3. CAny loud noise in a public place
4. DUnreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land

The Caparo test for a new duty of care requires:

1. AA contract between the parties, a breach of its terms and loss flowing directly from the breach
2. BIntention, motive and damage
3. CProof of criminal conduct
4. DForeseeability of harm, proximity and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

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:

1. ALiable for any defect on its premises
2. BLiable, because maintenance is non-delegable
3. CLiable only if the lift is new
4. DNot liable, if it reasonably chose a competent contractor

A house is built on defective foundations, approved by the local authority. Cracks appear and the owner sells at a loss. In Murphy v Brentwood DC, the loss was:

1. APhysical damage, fully recoverable
2. BRecoverable only against the buyer
3. CRecoverable because the council approved the plans
4. DPure economic loss, not recoverable in negligence

After an accident in a tunnel, a police inspector negligently orders an officer to ride back against the traffic, and the officer is hit. In Knightley v Johns, the original negligent driver was:

1. ALiable, because rescuers are foreseeable
2. BLiable for half, shared with the inspector
3. CLiable for all consequences, because the officer's injury was a foreseeable result of the crash
4. DNot liable for the officer's injury, because the inspector's negligence broke the chain

A woman's 999 call is wrongly graded, and the police arrive too late to stop her former partner killing her. In Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police, the Supreme Court held:

1. AThe police were strictly liable for the delay
2. BThe call handler alone was personally liable
3. CThe police owed no duty in negligence to protect her
4. DThe police owed a duty because they took the call