TORT LAW EXAM QUESTIONS
WITH 100% CORRECT DETAILED
ANSWERS
What is meant by breaking the chain of causation - Answer- When an intervening act
occurs that is considered the real cause of the harm, relieving the original defendant of
liability
What is novus actus interveniens - Answer- A new intervening act that breaks the chain
of causation between the defendant's negligence and the claimant's damage
When can a third party's act break the chain of causation - Answer- When the act is
independent, unforeseeable and is the primary cause of the damage
Does an instinctive reaction by the third party break the chain? - Answer- No,
instrinctive actions in an emergecy do not break the chain
Does a negligent act by a 3rd party break the chain - Answer- Usually not, if the act was
a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence
When is reckless or intentional conduct by a third party more likely to break the chain -
Answer- When the conduct is independent and outside what could reasonably be
foreseen
Knightly v Johns why did the chain break - Answer- Police inspector's order was not
foreseeable consequence of the original negligent driving
When do a claimant's actions break the chain of causation - Answer- If the claimant's
actions are entirely unreasonable in the circumstances
What is the key test for remoteness of damage - Answer- Reasonable foreseeability
[Wagon Mound No 1]
What does the Wagon Mound No 1 test ask - Answer- Was the type of damage
reasonably foreseeable? if not it is too remote
What are the 2 main provisos of the Wagon Mound rule - Answer- 1= Similar in type rule
2= Egg-shell skull rule
What is the similar in type rule [Hughes v Lord Advocates] - Answer- If the type of harm
is foreseeable, the precise way it occurs doesn't matter
, What is the egg-shell skull rule - Answer- You take the vicitm as you find them
Defendant is liable for the full extent of harm even if unforeseeable
Robinson v Post Office - How does the egg-shell skull rule apply? - Answer- D liable for
unforeseeable allergic reaction to medical treatment necessitated by their negligence
What is pure economic loss - Answer- Financial loss that is not caused by physical
damage to a person or property, and is usually not recoverable in negligence
Does a defendant generally owe a duty of care to avoid causing pure economic loss -
Answer- No
General rule= no duty of care to avoid pure economic loss
Why do courts restrict liability for pure economic loss - Answer- To avoid indeterminate
liability to an unlimited number of claimants due to lack of proximity
What is meant by 'limited duty situation' in pure economic loss cases - Answer- There
are some exceptional circumstances where a duty of care is recognised but these are
limited
If someone acquires a defective product and suffers only financial loss, is this
recoverable in negligence? - Answer- No. This is pure economic loss and is not
recoverable in negligence
What did Murphy v Brentwood DC establish - Answer- Loss due to a defective building
or structure where the only damage is to the building itself, if pure economic loss and
not recoverable
Why was the claim in Murphy classed as pure economic loss - Answer- House itself
was defective but there was no damage to persons or other property
Loss was just a reduction in value
If a defective product causes personal injury, is the loss recoverable? - Answer- Yes
Personal injury or property damage caused by a defective product is recoverable
If a defective product damages other property, what losses are recoverable? - Answer-
Consequential economic loss (repair/replacement of the damaged property) is
recoverable, but the cost of replacing the defective product itself remains pure economic
loss and is not recoverable.
Can you recover losses caused by damage to property owned by someone else? -
Answer- No
This is pure economic loss and no duty of care is owed
WITH 100% CORRECT DETAILED
ANSWERS
What is meant by breaking the chain of causation - Answer- When an intervening act
occurs that is considered the real cause of the harm, relieving the original defendant of
liability
What is novus actus interveniens - Answer- A new intervening act that breaks the chain
of causation between the defendant's negligence and the claimant's damage
When can a third party's act break the chain of causation - Answer- When the act is
independent, unforeseeable and is the primary cause of the damage
Does an instinctive reaction by the third party break the chain? - Answer- No,
instrinctive actions in an emergecy do not break the chain
Does a negligent act by a 3rd party break the chain - Answer- Usually not, if the act was
a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence
When is reckless or intentional conduct by a third party more likely to break the chain -
Answer- When the conduct is independent and outside what could reasonably be
foreseen
Knightly v Johns why did the chain break - Answer- Police inspector's order was not
foreseeable consequence of the original negligent driving
When do a claimant's actions break the chain of causation - Answer- If the claimant's
actions are entirely unreasonable in the circumstances
What is the key test for remoteness of damage - Answer- Reasonable foreseeability
[Wagon Mound No 1]
What does the Wagon Mound No 1 test ask - Answer- Was the type of damage
reasonably foreseeable? if not it is too remote
What are the 2 main provisos of the Wagon Mound rule - Answer- 1= Similar in type rule
2= Egg-shell skull rule
What is the similar in type rule [Hughes v Lord Advocates] - Answer- If the type of harm
is foreseeable, the precise way it occurs doesn't matter
, What is the egg-shell skull rule - Answer- You take the vicitm as you find them
Defendant is liable for the full extent of harm even if unforeseeable
Robinson v Post Office - How does the egg-shell skull rule apply? - Answer- D liable for
unforeseeable allergic reaction to medical treatment necessitated by their negligence
What is pure economic loss - Answer- Financial loss that is not caused by physical
damage to a person or property, and is usually not recoverable in negligence
Does a defendant generally owe a duty of care to avoid causing pure economic loss -
Answer- No
General rule= no duty of care to avoid pure economic loss
Why do courts restrict liability for pure economic loss - Answer- To avoid indeterminate
liability to an unlimited number of claimants due to lack of proximity
What is meant by 'limited duty situation' in pure economic loss cases - Answer- There
are some exceptional circumstances where a duty of care is recognised but these are
limited
If someone acquires a defective product and suffers only financial loss, is this
recoverable in negligence? - Answer- No. This is pure economic loss and is not
recoverable in negligence
What did Murphy v Brentwood DC establish - Answer- Loss due to a defective building
or structure where the only damage is to the building itself, if pure economic loss and
not recoverable
Why was the claim in Murphy classed as pure economic loss - Answer- House itself
was defective but there was no damage to persons or other property
Loss was just a reduction in value
If a defective product causes personal injury, is the loss recoverable? - Answer- Yes
Personal injury or property damage caused by a defective product is recoverable
If a defective product damages other property, what losses are recoverable? - Answer-
Consequential economic loss (repair/replacement of the damaged property) is
recoverable, but the cost of replacing the defective product itself remains pure economic
loss and is not recoverable.
Can you recover losses caused by damage to property owned by someone else? -
Answer- No
This is pure economic loss and no duty of care is owed
