Tort law UPDATED Exam Questions and
CORRECT Answers
Case example for proprietary interests - legal standing - CORRECT ANSWER - Malone v
Laskey [1907] A woman was injured while using the toilet when its cistern fell on top of her. It
had been disloged by vibrations emanating from the electricity generator on the neighbouring
defendant's property. CoA held that she had no cause of action in nuisance against the defendant,
because she had no proprietary interest in the premises - the house belonged to her husband's
employer. She was 'merely present in the house'.
Key case for But for Test - CORRECT ANSWER - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington
Hospital Management Commitment [1969] - Doctor failed to properly examine a man in a&e
department. It transpired that the men was suffering from arsenic poisoning from which he
subsequently died. The Doctor admitted negligence but said he had not caused the man's death. It
could not be said that 'but for' the doctor's negligence the man would have survived. Court held
as the doctor's negligence was not a necessary condition for the mans death, he could not be held
liable for it.
Case that the but for test doesnt work - CORRECT ANSWER - Wilsher v Essex Area
Health Authority [1988] - After difficult delivery, baby was mistakenly given too much oxygen
by the doctor. The baby suffered injury, resulting in blindness. There were also 5 other factors
for babies' blindness - C was unable to prove on a balance of probabilities that the excess oxygen
had been the cause of his blindness. Courts applied but for test and found Causation was not
established. Too many factors for the courts to determine whether the defendant was liable.
Key case for material contribution - CORRECT ANSWER - Bonnington Castings V
Wardlaw [1956] - A factory employee contracted pneumoconiosis, a lung condition, from the
inhalation of silica dust. He sued his employer in negligence. Some dust inhalation was an
inevitable consequence of the work being done. HoL found that there was a higher level of dust
in the air than there should have been, due to the employers negligence is not adequately
ventilating the factory. The question was, then, whether the 'guilty' dust made any difference to
the claimant's chances of contracting the disease. Couldnt be established exactly at what point
the disease occured. The House of Lords found that because cumulatively the innocent and guilty
dust were more likely to cause harm, it was enough to show that the defendants negligence made
a material contribution to the condition.
, Case example for Joint and Several Liability - CORRECT ANSWER - Fairchild v
Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] - While working for a number of employers C was
exposed to asbestos dust. As a result, C developed a lung disease. Court took a controversial
approach because departs from the normal 'but-for' legal pricniple - Court follows Mcghee ruling
each D was treated as having created a 'material increase of risk' of damage to C. If the liability
of employers was joint and several, C can sue all the employers or just one for the damage
caused.
Act that reinforces Fairchild position - CORRECT ANSWER - Compensation Act 2006 -
Clarifies position of joint and several liability in cases of asbestos-related mesothelioma. Any
one negligent could, if necessary be ordered to bear 100% liability, regardless of the extent of
their involvement with C. Article 3(2) 'if others have also exposed the victim to asbestos then
liability is 'joint and several'
Case example for Novus Actus Interveniens - CORRECT ANSWER - McKew v Holland
[1969] - C suffered an injury to his leg caused by D, the employers negligence. For some time
after the event, he suffered from a condition which meant his leg frequently gave way. When he
attempted to descend a steep flight of stairs with no handrail, he suffered further serious injuries.
He did not seek assistance in climbing the stairs. C sues for negligence, act was novus actus
interveniens, broke chain of causation. D was not liable for the effects of the second accident.
Case example for intervening act of a third party - CORRECT ANSWER - Knightley v
Johns [1982] - D, jones, through negligent driving, crashed and blocked a tunnel. The police
officer sent a police motorcyclist back against the flow of the the traffic to block off the tunnel.
The police officer was injured when he collided with an oncoming car while rounding a bend.
Police officers order broke the chain of causation from the first accident. Police officers act = a
positive act rather than a mere omission. Second accident could not be seen as a 'natural and
probable consequence' of the negligence of D.
What happened in Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880 - CORRECT
ANSWER - A drain had been placed on the defendants property by a third party (local
authority) without permission. The defendant had allowed it to become blocked and it
overflowed onto the claimants land. The defendant was liable in nuisance as the occupier of the
land, he had used the drain for his own purposes and thus adopted it.
CORRECT Answers
Case example for proprietary interests - legal standing - CORRECT ANSWER - Malone v
Laskey [1907] A woman was injured while using the toilet when its cistern fell on top of her. It
had been disloged by vibrations emanating from the electricity generator on the neighbouring
defendant's property. CoA held that she had no cause of action in nuisance against the defendant,
because she had no proprietary interest in the premises - the house belonged to her husband's
employer. She was 'merely present in the house'.
Key case for But for Test - CORRECT ANSWER - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington
Hospital Management Commitment [1969] - Doctor failed to properly examine a man in a&e
department. It transpired that the men was suffering from arsenic poisoning from which he
subsequently died. The Doctor admitted negligence but said he had not caused the man's death. It
could not be said that 'but for' the doctor's negligence the man would have survived. Court held
as the doctor's negligence was not a necessary condition for the mans death, he could not be held
liable for it.
Case that the but for test doesnt work - CORRECT ANSWER - Wilsher v Essex Area
Health Authority [1988] - After difficult delivery, baby was mistakenly given too much oxygen
by the doctor. The baby suffered injury, resulting in blindness. There were also 5 other factors
for babies' blindness - C was unable to prove on a balance of probabilities that the excess oxygen
had been the cause of his blindness. Courts applied but for test and found Causation was not
established. Too many factors for the courts to determine whether the defendant was liable.
Key case for material contribution - CORRECT ANSWER - Bonnington Castings V
Wardlaw [1956] - A factory employee contracted pneumoconiosis, a lung condition, from the
inhalation of silica dust. He sued his employer in negligence. Some dust inhalation was an
inevitable consequence of the work being done. HoL found that there was a higher level of dust
in the air than there should have been, due to the employers negligence is not adequately
ventilating the factory. The question was, then, whether the 'guilty' dust made any difference to
the claimant's chances of contracting the disease. Couldnt be established exactly at what point
the disease occured. The House of Lords found that because cumulatively the innocent and guilty
dust were more likely to cause harm, it was enough to show that the defendants negligence made
a material contribution to the condition.
, Case example for Joint and Several Liability - CORRECT ANSWER - Fairchild v
Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] - While working for a number of employers C was
exposed to asbestos dust. As a result, C developed a lung disease. Court took a controversial
approach because departs from the normal 'but-for' legal pricniple - Court follows Mcghee ruling
each D was treated as having created a 'material increase of risk' of damage to C. If the liability
of employers was joint and several, C can sue all the employers or just one for the damage
caused.
Act that reinforces Fairchild position - CORRECT ANSWER - Compensation Act 2006 -
Clarifies position of joint and several liability in cases of asbestos-related mesothelioma. Any
one negligent could, if necessary be ordered to bear 100% liability, regardless of the extent of
their involvement with C. Article 3(2) 'if others have also exposed the victim to asbestos then
liability is 'joint and several'
Case example for Novus Actus Interveniens - CORRECT ANSWER - McKew v Holland
[1969] - C suffered an injury to his leg caused by D, the employers negligence. For some time
after the event, he suffered from a condition which meant his leg frequently gave way. When he
attempted to descend a steep flight of stairs with no handrail, he suffered further serious injuries.
He did not seek assistance in climbing the stairs. C sues for negligence, act was novus actus
interveniens, broke chain of causation. D was not liable for the effects of the second accident.
Case example for intervening act of a third party - CORRECT ANSWER - Knightley v
Johns [1982] - D, jones, through negligent driving, crashed and blocked a tunnel. The police
officer sent a police motorcyclist back against the flow of the the traffic to block off the tunnel.
The police officer was injured when he collided with an oncoming car while rounding a bend.
Police officers order broke the chain of causation from the first accident. Police officers act = a
positive act rather than a mere omission. Second accident could not be seen as a 'natural and
probable consequence' of the negligence of D.
What happened in Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880 - CORRECT
ANSWER - A drain had been placed on the defendants property by a third party (local
authority) without permission. The defendant had allowed it to become blocked and it
overflowed onto the claimants land. The defendant was liable in nuisance as the occupier of the
land, he had used the drain for his own purposes and thus adopted it.
