1.Easy
In English law, is there a general duty to rescue a stranger in danger?
- ANo, unless the stranger asks for help
- BNo, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
- CYes, but only for trained professionals
- DYes, everyone must try to rescue anyone in danger
2.Easy
The phrase "res ipsa loquitur" in negligence means:
- AThe claimant has voluntarily accepted the risk
- BThe defendant is strictly liable for any harm
- CThe facts suggest negligence unless the defendant gives an explanation
- DThe case cannot be decided without expert evidence on the standard of care
3.Easy
False imprisonment is:
- AUnlawfully and completely restricting a person's freedom of movement
- BBlocking one of several routes a person wants to take, however briefly
- CWrongly reporting someone to the police
- DRefusing to let someone enter your house
4.Medium
A man bangs trays and shouts every time his neighbour, a music teacher, gives lessons, purely to annoy her. In Christie v Davey, the court held:
- AOnly the police could deal with the noise
- BMusic lessons are themselves a nuisance
- CIntention is irrelevant in nuisance, so his motive could not affect the claim
- DHis malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
5.Medium
In Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, the House of Lords added to the Bolam test that the professional opinion relied on must:
- ABe held by most doctors in the country
- BBe written in a medical textbook
- CBe capable of withstanding logical analysis
- DBe accepted by the patient
6.Medium
The "but for" test is used to establish:
- ARemoteness of damage
- BFactual causation
- CThe standard of care
- DDuty of care
7.Hard
In Hedley Byrne v Heller, liability for negligent misstatement arose because:
- AThere was a special relationship in which the claimant reasonably relied on advice given with skill
- BThere was a contract between the parties under which the bank was paid a fee for the reference it gave
- CThe statement caused physical injury
- DThe defendant intended to deceive
8.Hard
Under the EU Product Liability Directive, the "development risks" defence allows a producer to escape liability if:
- AThe product was sold at a low price
- BThe producer was not negligent in manufacturing
- CThe state of scientific and technical knowledge when the product was circulated did not allow the defect to be discovered
- DThe consumer did not read the instructions
Answer key
- 1. B · No, there is generally no liability for a pure omission
- 2. C · The facts suggest negligence unless the defendant gives an explanation
- 3. A · Unlawfully and completely restricting a person's freedom of movement
- 4. D · His malice made the noise an unreasonable use of land and a nuisance
- 5. C · Be capable of withstanding logical analysis
- 6. B · Factual causation
- 7. A · There was a special relationship in which the claimant reasonably relied on advice given with skill
- 8. C · The state of scientific and technical knowledge when the product was circulated did not allow the defect to be discovered
Full step-by-step solutions: practise this topic on examproblems.com.