Tuesday 10 October 2006

If you were at the class you will already have a hard copy of this. Otherwise, you must be prepared to answer any of these questions next week.

Multiple Choice – Law of Tort

1. Eric works as a foreman in a food processing factory. Vats of chemicals are used to clean the machinery on a regular basis. Other cleaning materials are kept in asbestos containers in a separate part of the plant. During processing the lid of one of these containers falls into a vat near to Eric. He is splashed by the chemical and, before he can get away, the vat explodes following a reaction between the asbestos and the chemical previously unknown to science. Eric, barely alive after the explosion, brings a claim in tort against the employers. Will he succeed?


Splash
Explosion
a
No – too remote
No – too remote
b
Yes - foreseeable
Yes - foreseeable
c
Yes - foreseeable
No – too remote
d
No – too remote
Yes - foreseeable

2. In which of the following individual circumstances will a person who uses an independent contractor be liable for the contractor’s torts?

(i) If the operation performed is one for which strict liability exists
(ii) If the operation is one which is exceptionally risky
(iii) If the operation is one which creates a hazard in a public building
(iv)If the contractor is not competent to do the work entrusted to him

a. i & ii only b .iii & iv only
c i, ii and iii only d. all of the above

3. Amanda, a solicitor, is called to advise Emma in drawing up her will. She tells her that she wants her nephew, Paul, to receive a particular legacy. Owing to negligence on the part of Amanda the legacy fails. Can Paul bring an action, and if so, why?

a. No - he was not a party to the will and so has no cause of action against Amanda
b. No - the right to sue for negligence is Emma’s, not Paul’s (with whom Amanda has no privity of contract)
c. Yes - Paul as beneficiary inherits Emma’s right to sue Amanda for the tort of negligence
d. Yes - Amanda had a duty to Paul under the neighbour principle since he was actually known to Amanda at the time as being interested in the will.

4. To which of the following persons does an occupier of premises owe a duty of care?

i. To anyone
ii. To any person who enters the premises
iii. To any person who enters the premises under a legal right of entry
iv. To any person who enters the premises with the occupier’s actual or implied permission

a. i and ii only
b. iii and iv only
c. i, ii and iii only
d. ii, iii and iv only

5. If; in the tort of negligence, the defendant can show that the claimant was partly responsible for his own injuries

a. the claimant cannot recover any compensation from the defendant
b. the court will reduce the damages payable to the claimant
c. the court will take no account of the claimant’s actions so long as the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care
d. the court will prevent the claimant from proceeding with the case as there has been a novus actus interveniens

6. If, in the tort of negligence, the defendant is able to establish that his breach of the duty of care did not cause any loss or injury to the claimant;

a. the claimant may recover nominal damages only;
b. the claimant may recover damages in respect of physical injury but not financial loss;
c. the defendant is not liable;
d. the defendant is fully liable as he has broken his duty of care.

7. F is the auditor of H plc. As a general rule, F owes a duty of care to

a. H plc and its individual shareholders
b. H plc and its existing and potential shareholders
c. H plc only
d. anyone who relies on information published by F

8. G has sued H in the tort of negligence to recover compensation for personal injuries. G has proved that H owed and breached a duty of care. In the event G can recover compensation for

a. all injuries caused by H
b. physical but not mental injuries caused by H
c. all reasonably foreseeable physical and mental injuries caused by H
d. physical and mental injuries which are a direct consequence of H’s action

9. Which of the following is not an essential element of the tort of negligence?

a. The defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care
b. The defendant must have broken the duty of care
c. The defendant must have intended harm to the claimant
d. The defendant’s actions must have resulted in the loss or injury to the claimant

10. Heavy rain made a factory floor slippery with oil and water. Try as they might. the owners couldn’t keep it completely dry and someone slipped and was injured. Were the factory owners negligent?

a. yes
b. no

11. If, after being badly advised, you suffer financial loss, you may be able to recover the loss, so long as:

i. a special relationship exists (e.g. solicitor and client)
ii. the claimant relies on the defendant’s skill and knowledge
iii. it was reasonable for him to rely on the advice
iv. the main case in this area is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964

a. i & ii only
b. iii & iv only
c. i, ii, and iii only
d. all of the above.

12. The type of damages caused by a negligent act is not always recoverable, especially in cases of:

(i) negligent misstatement
(ii) nervous shock
(iii) pure economic loss

a. i and ii only
b. iii only
c. i, ii and iii
d. ii and iii only

13. Remedies available in cases involving the tort of negligence are;

(i) damages
(ii) jail
(iii) specific performance
(iv) injunction

a. i and ii only
b. iii and iv only
c. i, ii and iii only
d. i, iii, and iv only.

FOUR ON NEGLIGENCE
1. Paul is killed whilst travelling in a vehicle driven by Bert. A tyre burst and the vehicle crossed the carriageway into the path of another vehicle. Police examination of the tyre revealed a large cut in the outer wall of the tyre, which could well have been discovered beforehand.

Does res ipsa loquitur apply to the situation?

2. Michelle and her eight year old son are passengers on a bus which collided with a lamppost. The boy suffered only minor injury, as did Michelle. However, owing to a pre-existing personality disorder she suffered hysterics and lasting nervous shock.

Can Michelle recover?

3. Charlie, who has a perforated eardrum, works in a very noisy factory. Ear defenders are not provided to the workforce. A particularly loud explosion one day causes Charlie to permanently lose his hearing.

Is a claim possible against his employer?

4. Bill spends seven weeks on remand in prison facing an allegation of robbery. At the next hearing the Crown Prosecution Service offer no evidence & Bill is released. He wants to bring an action against the Crown Prosecution Service because he states that if they had done their job properly he would have been released much earlier.

Advise him.