Test Bank For Tort Law, 2E By Timon Hughes-Davies, Nathan Tamblyn, Matthew Channon Chapter 1-15
Chapter 1 Q1. D. Crime There are various types of civil wrong, and tort is only one such collection.
Q2. C. The law imposes restrictions on what compensation is available If a tort has caused recoverable harm, then the claimant is entitled to compensation as of right. The courts will assess how much compensation. But the law limits compensation to that which is not too remote.
Q3. B. To imprison Imprisonment is not a remedy in tort law. But ignoring a court order might result in contempt of court, and that can include imprisonment.
Q4. A. Harassment Sometimes new problems can only be addressed by statute, not case law. Harassment needed a statute. Chapter 2
Q1. C. Emotional Distress Claims in negligence require actual damage to have been caused. Emotional distress is not recognised as a form of damage in negligence.
Q2. A. Donoghue v Stevenson
Information Classification: General
The 'neighbour principle' in Donoghue v Stevenson was the first general test for duty of care. Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton provided amended versions of the test. A general test was proposed by one judge in Heaven v Pender but not approved by the majority.
Q3. C. The incremental approach Robinson confirmed that new duties of care should be developed incrementally, by analogy with existing duties.
Q4. B. The claimant's financial resources The claimant's financial resources are not considered as a policy issue when determining the duty of care. The effect of finding a duty on the courts, on defendants and on the public finances may be taken into account. Chapter 3
Q1. C. Whether the defendant is a child The only personal attribute of the defendant that the court takes into account is when the defendant is a child, where a lower standard of care is reasonable.
Q2. A. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee The Bolam test was first applied in the case of medical practitioners, but applies to all professionals: where a professional acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper within the profession, they are not in breach of their duty of care.
Q3. C. SARAH SARAH, the Social Action, Heroism and Responsibility Act 2014 requires the court to consider whether the defendant was acting heroically, by intervening in an emergency or assisting a person in danger.
Q4. A. When they show a 'reckless disregard' for the other player's safety
Information Classification: General
Foul play or breaking the rules, even if the player is penalised, is not a breach of the duty owed by one player to another, unless the player shows a reckless disregard for the other's safety.
Q5. A. When the illness completely removes their ability to act voluntarily In Dunnage v Randall, it was held that a defendant was liable unless their illness completely removed their ability to act voluntarily. Although in that case, the defendant was not aware of his illness, which substantially affected both his judgment and his perception of reality, he was still liable. Chapter 4
Q1. A. The 'but for' test To establish causation in fact, the claimant must show that, but for the defendant's breach of duty, the claimant would not have suffered injury or damage.
Q2. C. The defendant's breach materially contributed to the severity of the injury In cases of divisible injury, where the level of exposure to the causative agent affects the severity of the condition, the defendant has to show that the defendant's breach made the claimant's injury worse, or materially contributed to its severity.
Q3. C. A claimant suffering from mesothelioma can recover full damages from any defendant who negligently exposed him or her to asbestos In Barker v Corus, the House of Lords held that a claimant with mesothelioma, an indivisible injury, could only claim damages from a defendant proportional to the exposure that the defendant was responsible for. This judgment was reversed by s.3 of the Compensation Act, which allows a claimant with mesothelioma to recover full damages from any defendant who negligently exposed him or her to asbestos.
Q4. B. An act by the claimant or third party or a natural event that breaks the chain of causation and ends the liability of the defendant for subsequent damage A novus actus interveniens is a 'new and intervening act' by the claimant or third party, or a natural event, which breaks the chain of causation.
Information Classification: General
Chapter 5
Q1. A. Financial or economic loss not caused by personal injury or property damage Pure economic loss refers to financial losses not related to personal injury or property damage, such as loss of business or losses caused by negligent advice.
Q2. B. Hedley Byrne v Heller The case which established liability for pure economic loss on the basis of assumption of responsibility was Hedley Byrne v Heller. Caparo v Dickman and Manchester Building Society both applied Hedley Byrne. The principle that assumption of responsibility could give rise to liability for pure economic loss was proposed by Denning LJ in Candler v Crane Christmas, 18 years before Hedley Byrne, but not approved by the majority in the Court of Appeal.
Q3. D. The defendant was under a contractual duty to provide the advice or actions Liability for economic loss will arise where the defendant has a contractual duty or where the defendant is providing the advice or acting voluntarily.
Q4. C. The defendant was not acting voluntarily The claimant was relying on the defendant to take action by freezing two companies' bank accounts, and it was foreseeable that failure to do so would cause pure economic loss to the claimant. However, the bank was not acting voluntarily but under a duty imposed by law.
Information Classification: General
Chapter 6
Q1. D. Primary victims are those who have an 'apprehension of physical harm’ or those within the range of ‘foreseeable physical injury Primary victims are those who have an 'apprehension of physical harm’ or those within the range of ‘foreseeable physical injury’.
Q2. A 'horrifying event' The Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust held that a horrifying event is not required.
Q3. C. A close tie of love and affection is presumed between spouses and between parent and child A close tie of love and affection is presumed in spousal and parent/child relationships.
Q4. A. That the claimant was in physical danger That the claimant was in physical danger.
Information Classification: General