TORT LAW STUDY TEST QUESTIONS
WITH CORRECT ANSWERS
What is negligence - Answer-- a person's/ company's carelessness has led to injury or
loss of another
What is occupiers liability - Answer-A branch of negligence specific to premises such as
houses the occupier of a premises doesn't take sufficient care of those premises and
another is damaged by the unfit state of those premises
What are the different torts - Answer-- Negligence
(Occupiers Liability)
- Nuisance
(Rylands v Fletcher)
- Vicarious Liability
What must result from D's negligence - Answer-damage
for damage, c must prove... - Answer-factual causation and legal causation
What is factual causation - Answer-But for test
Case for factual causation - Answer-Barnett v Chelsea Kensington HMC
- the but for test was not met because the claimant would have died anyway. the breach
was not the cause of death.
What is legal causation? - Answer-remoteness of the damage eggshell skull rule
intervening acts
What is nuisance - Answer-a person/ business does something on their land which
causes unreasonable annoyance to neighboroughs
What is Rylands v Fletcher? - Answer-a branch of nuisance
a persons brings something unusual onto their land which escapes from the land of one
person onto the land of another and does damage
, what is vicarious liability? - Answer-not a tort in its own right a way of deciding if an
employer or an employee is liable for tort, or crime, committed by the employee
why does tort law exist? - Answer-- it is partly based around the concept of fault
- there is some wrong doing by the D
what is strict liability? - Answer-when a defendant is liable for committing an action,
regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action
NEGLIGENCE: what is negligence
(carelessness) - Answer-failing to do something which a reasonable man would do or
doing something that the reasonable man would not do"
(Baron Alderson Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co)
3 elements of negligence - Answer-1. duty of care
2. breach of duty
3. damage
negligence - Donoghue v Stevenson - Answer-identified the neighbour principle
(Lord Atkin)
what is the Caparo test? - Answer-Sometimes there is an established DOC, if it's a
unique situation we have to use the Caparo test to see if there is a DOC
where does the caparo test come from? - Answer-Caparo v Dickman
what are the three parts of the caparo test? - Answer-1. Was the damage or harm
reasonably foreseeable (need answer to be yes)
2. The proximity in terms on time and space or relationship (need to be proximate)
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant? (needs to be yes)
was the damage or harm reasonably forseable?
Yes case - Answer-objective test:
Kent v Griffins - it was reasonably foreseeable that c would suffer harm from the failure
of the ambulance service to arrive in a reasonable amount of time
was the damage or harm reasonably forseable?
No case - Answer-Bourhill v Young - the court held the motorcyclist did not owe the
woman who saw blood after he crashed a duty of care as it wasn't reasonably
foreseeable that she would be affected by his negligence
proximity? - Answer-closeness
by time and space or relationship
WITH CORRECT ANSWERS
What is negligence - Answer-- a person's/ company's carelessness has led to injury or
loss of another
What is occupiers liability - Answer-A branch of negligence specific to premises such as
houses the occupier of a premises doesn't take sufficient care of those premises and
another is damaged by the unfit state of those premises
What are the different torts - Answer-- Negligence
(Occupiers Liability)
- Nuisance
(Rylands v Fletcher)
- Vicarious Liability
What must result from D's negligence - Answer-damage
for damage, c must prove... - Answer-factual causation and legal causation
What is factual causation - Answer-But for test
Case for factual causation - Answer-Barnett v Chelsea Kensington HMC
- the but for test was not met because the claimant would have died anyway. the breach
was not the cause of death.
What is legal causation? - Answer-remoteness of the damage eggshell skull rule
intervening acts
What is nuisance - Answer-a person/ business does something on their land which
causes unreasonable annoyance to neighboroughs
What is Rylands v Fletcher? - Answer-a branch of nuisance
a persons brings something unusual onto their land which escapes from the land of one
person onto the land of another and does damage
, what is vicarious liability? - Answer-not a tort in its own right a way of deciding if an
employer or an employee is liable for tort, or crime, committed by the employee
why does tort law exist? - Answer-- it is partly based around the concept of fault
- there is some wrong doing by the D
what is strict liability? - Answer-when a defendant is liable for committing an action,
regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action
NEGLIGENCE: what is negligence
(carelessness) - Answer-failing to do something which a reasonable man would do or
doing something that the reasonable man would not do"
(Baron Alderson Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co)
3 elements of negligence - Answer-1. duty of care
2. breach of duty
3. damage
negligence - Donoghue v Stevenson - Answer-identified the neighbour principle
(Lord Atkin)
what is the Caparo test? - Answer-Sometimes there is an established DOC, if it's a
unique situation we have to use the Caparo test to see if there is a DOC
where does the caparo test come from? - Answer-Caparo v Dickman
what are the three parts of the caparo test? - Answer-1. Was the damage or harm
reasonably foreseeable (need answer to be yes)
2. The proximity in terms on time and space or relationship (need to be proximate)
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant? (needs to be yes)
was the damage or harm reasonably forseable?
Yes case - Answer-objective test:
Kent v Griffins - it was reasonably foreseeable that c would suffer harm from the failure
of the ambulance service to arrive in a reasonable amount of time
was the damage or harm reasonably forseable?
No case - Answer-Bourhill v Young - the court held the motorcyclist did not owe the
woman who saw blood after he crashed a duty of care as it wasn't reasonably
foreseeable that she would be affected by his negligence
proximity? - Answer-closeness
by time and space or relationship
