TORT LAW EXAM 2025 QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
Case example for proprietary interests - legal standing - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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
1 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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
2 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
AND ANSWERS
Case example for proprietary interests - legal standing - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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
1 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
, 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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 - ANS 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
2 Copyright ©2025 SIRJOEL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
