Tort law worksheet with answers

Under the Defamation Act 2013, the defence of truth requires the defendant to show that:

1. AThe statement was on a matter of public interest
2. BEvery single word of the statement is accurate
3. CThe defendant honestly and reasonably believed the statement was true
4. DThe imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true

Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless:

1. AThe claimant has lost money because of it
2. BIt has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation
3. CThe defendant intended to harm the claimant or was reckless as to whether it would
4. DIt was published in a newspaper or online

Private nuisance concerns:

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

A doctor builds a consulting room next to a confectioner whose noisy machines had operated for years without complaint. Can the confectioner defend a nuisance claim by saying the doctor "came to the nuisance"?

1. ANo, because doctors have special protection
2. BYes, because the machines were used first
3. CNo, coming to the nuisance is not a defence
4. DYes, the doctor accepted the noise by building there

Under Froom v Butcher, if wearing a seatbelt would have prevented a car passenger's injuries entirely, damages are usually reduced by:

1. A10%
2. B50%
3. C25%
4. D75%

A learner driver on her third lesson crashes and injures her instructor. Under Nettleship v Weston, her driving is judged by the standard of:

1. AA professional racing driver
2. BHer own best efforts as a beginner
3. CA reasonably competent and experienced driver
4. DA reasonable learner at the same stage

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. AThe employer was liable for half of the ankle injury
2. BThe stairs' owner was solely liable
3. CHis unreasonable conduct broke the chain of causation
4. DThe employer was liable for the ankle injury as a foreseeable result

A petrol station kiosk attendant racially abuses a customer, follows him outside and assaults him. In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets, the employer was:

1. ALiable only if it had trained him poorly
2. BNot liable, because the assault took place outside the kiosk and after the conversation ended
3. CNot liable, because violence was not part of his job
4. DVicariously liable, as the assault was closely connected to his job of serving customers