TL

Question 1

What constitutes trespass to land?

Answer 1

A: Unlawful, direct interference with the claimant’s possession of land.

Trespass to land involves unlawful, direct, and intentional interference with the claimant’s possession of land. This can include physical entry, placing objects on the land, or allowing animals to stray onto it. Example: Digging a tunnel under a neighbor’s land constitutes trespass to land due to direct interference.

Question 2

What is battery in the context of trespass to the person?

Answer 2

A: The direct and intentional application of unlawful force to the claimant’s person.

Battery is the direct and intentional application of unlawful force to another person without their consent. This can range from physical contact to more invasive actions without consent. Example: Performing an additional medical procedure without the patient’s consent during surgery amounts to battery.

Question 3

Define assault in tort law.

Answer 3

A: Intentional act causing the claimant reasonably to apprehend the immediate and direct infliction of unlawful force on their person.

Example: During a heated argument in a public park, Alex suddenly raises a fist towards Jordan, standing only a few feet away, and shouts, “I’m going to hit you right now!” Alex’s actions and threatening words cause Jordan to flinch and step back in fear of being struck immediately. Although Alex does not actually strike Jordan, the act of raising a fist in a threatening manner and the accompanying threat are sufficient to cause Jordan to reasonably apprehend an imminent and direct application of unlawful force, constituting an assault.

Question 4

What is false imprisonment?

Answer 4

A: The unlawful constraint of the claimant’s freedom of movement from a particular place.

Example: Emma is shopping in a boutique when the store manager, mistakenly suspecting her of shoplifting, locks the front door and insists Emma cannot leave until the police arrive. Emma, with no other exits available, is forced to wait against her will, unable to leave the store. This act by the store manager constitutes false imprisonment, as Emma’s freedom of movement is unlawfully constrained, preventing her from leaving the store.

Question 5

Explain trespass to goods.

Answer 5

A: Intentional and direct interference with the claimant’s possession of goods.

Example: Sam borrows a bicycle from Jamie for a quick ride around the block. Without Jamie’s permission, Sam decides to take the bicycle on a week-long trip out of town. Jamie, needing the bicycle for daily commutes, is deprived of its use during this time. Sam’s actions constitute an intentional and direct interference with Jamie’s possession of the bicycle, qualifying as trespass to goods.

Question 6

What is conversion in tort law?

Answer 6

A: Dealing with goods in a way which is seriously inconsistent with the rights of the owner.

Example: Lisa lends her expensive camera to Mark for an afternoon photography session. Instead of returning it, Mark sells the camera to a pawn shop. This act of selling the camera without Lisa’s consent is a clear and serious interference with her ownership rights, constituting conversion.

Question 7

How does the law treat unintentional entries onto land?

Answer 7

A: Unintentional entries, such as being pushed, are not considered trespass as they lack intent.

Example: During a crowded street festival, Chloe is suddenly pushed by a surge of people and inadvertently ends up on Nathan’s private lawn, which is adjacent to the public area. Since Chloe did not intend to enter Nathan’s property and was forced onto it due to the push from the crowd, her entry is not considered trespass due to the lack of intent.

Question 8

Can words alone constitute assault?

Answer 8

A: Yes, if they amount to a threat of immediate force.

Example: In a heated argument at a cafe, Kevin leans across the table towards Alex, clenches his fists, and loudly states, “I’m going to punch you if you don’t back off right now!” Although Kevin hasn’t made any physical contact, his threatening words and aggressive posture lead Alex to fear immediate physical harm. This scenario demonstrates that words alone can constitute assault if they amount to a credible threat of immediate force.

Question 9

Identify which of the following would be trespass to land:
* (A) While watering his garden, Defendant decides to spray
some water onto Claimant’s garden.
* (B) While Defendant is spraying pesticide on his shrubs, the
wind blows some of it onto Claimant’s garden.
* (C) Defendant throws a ball over Claimant’s yard to the street on the other side.
* (D) Defendant fails to cut a rotting limb from a tree that hangs over Claimant’s property and a windstorm knocks the limb onto Claimant’s garden.

Answer 9

C. Defendant throws a ball over Claimant’s yard to the street on the other side.

Tresspass to land is an unlawful and intentional direct interference with the claimant’s possession of land.

This is trespass because spraying the water was intentional and trespass to land need not cause harm to the claimant’s property.

Question 10

WHAT ARE THREE TYPES OF TRESPASS
TO PERSON?

Answer 10

• Battery
• Assault
• False Imprisonment

Question 11

What is unlawful force?

Answer 11

force that is not wanted and not consented to.

Question 12

For each of the following scenarios, identify whether the defendant has committed battery, assault, or neither tort.
A: Battery
B: Assault C: Neither
1. Defendant brushes a spider off of Claimant’s shoulder.
2. While walking on a sidewalk, Defendant shoves his friend so that he bumps into Claimant, a police officer.
3. While performing a root canal on Claimant, Defendant decides to remove another tooth that does not appear healthy.
4. While holding a hose, Defendant tells Claimant that she is going to spray him.
5. Defendant comes behind Claimant and throws a rock at him, which Claimant sees after it narrowly missed him.

Answer 12

1. Neither - Battery is the direct and intentional application of unlawful force to the Clamant’s person. Assault is an intentional act that causes the Claimant reasonably to apprehend the immediate and direct infliction of unlawful force on their person. In this scenario, there was contact, but contact that is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life is not unlawful.
2. Battery - There was unlawful contact with both the friend and the officer; direct contact includes propelling an object or another person into the claimant.
3. Battery - This scenario certainly involves contact, and even though it was intended to help the claimant, it is battery in the absence of consent.
4. Assault - There is no contact (and so no battery) but Defendant’s words would make Claimant apprehend infliction of force (being hit with water); the claimant does not need to fear the force being threatened to show apprehension of force for assault.
5. Neither - There is no assault because the apprehension must be of immediate force about to be applied; apprehension of a past threat of force does not suffice.

Question 13

1. Claimant can recover for trespass to land even without actual damage to the land.
2. Grabbing a phone out of Claimant’s hand can be a battery.
3. Blocking the road that Claimant is traveling on is false imprisonment.
4. Consent to physical contact in a sporting event must be express.
5. A conversion remedy allows Claimant to get an order for Defendant to return the goods.

Answer 13

1. True - Trespass to land does not require actual damage to the land.
2. True - For battery, the application of unlawful force to the claimant’s person may be to an object that the claimant is holding.
3. False - False imprisonment requires a complete constraint of the claimant’s freedom of movement; merely blocking one direction does not suffice.
4. False - Consent to physical contact in a sporting event may be implied, as long as the contact is within the bounds of the game.
5. True - If the defendant who converted the claimant’s goods still has possession, the claimant can get an order for the defendant to return them.

Question 14

For each of the following scenarios, identify whether the defendant has committed trespass to goods, conversion, or neither.

A: Trespass to goods B: Conversion C: Neither

1. Defendant goes to a bazaar and buys jewellery; she does not know jewellery was stolen from Claimant.
2. Defendant sticks his finger in a cake at Claimant’s bake shop.
3. Defendant trips while running through Claimant’s china shop and shatters a vase.

Answer 14

1. Conversion - Trespass to goods is defined as intentional and direct interference with the claimant’s possession of goods. Conversion is defined as ‘intentionally dealing with goods in a way which is seriously inconsistent with the rights of the owner’.

This is conversion because the intent required is just intent to do the act; the defendant need not have intended to infringe the claimant’s rights in the goods to be liable.

2. Tress pass to goods - This scenario is trespass to goods because that would include touching the goods in a way that goes beyond what is ordinarily acceptable.
3. Neither - This scenario is neither because both conversion and trespass to goods require intentional conduct. Unintentionally harming the claimant’s property does not qualify, even if negligent.

Question 15

What is negligence in tort law?

Answer 15

Answer: Negligence in tort law is a type of liability based on fault or careless conduct by the defendant, where the intent of the defendant is usually irrelevant. The primary objective of negligence is to compensate the injured party by placing them in the position they would have been in if the tort had not occurred.

Example: During a rainy day, the owner of a grocery store, Derek, neglects to put out a “Wet Floor” sign after mopping the entrance. Sarah, unaware of the slippery condition, enters the store, slips, and injures her ankle. Derek’s failure to warn customers of the hazardous condition represents careless conduct, making him liable for negligence. The aim of any resulting legal action would be to compensate Sarah for her injury, ideally restoring her to the position she would have been in had the negligence not occurred.

Question 16

What are the essential elements that must be proven in a negligence claim?

Answer 16

Answer: In a negligence claim, the claimant must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty of care, and that the breach of duty caused the claimant’s injury. These elements must be established in this specific order for the claim to succeed.

Example: During a neighborhood block party, Tony, a homeowner, fails to repair a known loose floorboard on his deck. While attending the party, Linda steps on the loose floorboard, which gives way, causing her to fall and break her wrist. For Linda’s negligence claim to succeed against Tony, she must demonstrate that Tony owed her a duty of care to ensure his property was safe for guests, that he breached this duty by neglecting the known hazard, and that this breach directly led to her injury.

Question 17

What is meant by ‘duty of care’ in negligence?

Answer 17

Answer: A ‘duty of care’ in negligence implies that the defendant owes a responsibility to the claimant to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen to harm the claimant. This duty is not owed to the world at large but is specific to certain situations or relationships, like doctor-patient or driver-pedestrian.

Example: Dr. Ellis, a general practitioner, prescribes medication to her patient, Jordan, without properly reviewing his medical history for potential allergies. Jordan has a severe allergic reaction to the medication, resulting in hospitalization. In this scenario, Dr. Ellis owed a duty of care to Jordan to ensure that any prescribed medication would not harm him, based on the specific doctor-patient relationship. Her failure to review his medical history and foresee the potential harm breached this duty.

Question 18

How is a breach of duty established in negligence?

Answer 18

Answer: A breach of duty in negligence is established when it is shown that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care expected in their situation. The standard is usually that of a reasonable and prudent person under similar circumstances. Special rules apply to children and professionals.

Example: During a heavy snowstorm, the owner of a convenience store, Alex, decides not to salt or clear the icy sidewalk in front of his shop. Mark, a customer, slips on the ice while entering the store and suffers a broken arm. In this case, Alex breached his duty by failing to take reasonable precautions to make the entrance safe for customers, which a prudent store owner would have done under similar circumstances, leading to Mark’s injury.

Question 19

What is required to prove causation in a negligence claim?

Answer 19

Answer: To prove causation in negligence, the claimant must demonstrate that the defendant’s breach of duty directly caused the claimant’s injury (“causation in fact”) and that the harm suffered was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions (“causation in law”). The ‘but-for’ test is commonly used for establishing causation in fact.

Example: Leah, an inexperienced cyclist, decides to ride her bike on a busy street without using the designated bike lane. At the same time, Dan, driving his car, is texting and not paying attention to the road. Dan swerves slightly and hits Leah, causing her to suffer injuries. To establish causation in negligence, Leah must show that “but for” Dan’s breach of duty (texting while driving), her injuries would not have occurred, establishing causation in fact. Additionally, it must be shown that Leah’s injuries were a foreseeable result of Dan’s actions, meeting the requirement for causation in law.

Question 20

What is a common defense to negligence?*

Answer 20

Answer: A common defense to negligence is contributory negligence, where the claimant’s own fault contributed to their injury. If established, this defense does not remove liability but reduces the amount of damages proportionate to the claimant’s share of the blame.

Example: During a late-night drive, Emily speeds through a poorly lit street and hits a car driven by Jack, who had failed to signal before turning. In the resulting lawsuit, it’s determined that Emily’s speeding contributed to the accident. Although Jack was at fault for not signaling, Emily’s contributory negligence (speeding) led to a reduction in the damages she could recover, proportionate to her share of the blame in the accident.

Question 21

Identify which of the following are criteria for establishing a duty of care in a novel duty situation:
(check all that apply)
O 1. Fair, just and reasonable
O 2. Balance of probabilities
O 3. Proximity
O 4. Omission to act
© 5. Foreseeability

Answer 21

1, 3, 5,

Criteria for determining whether a novel duty exists include foreseeability of harm to the claimant (5), proximity of relationship between the claimant and the defendant (3), and whether imposing a duty of care is fair, just and reasonable (1).

Question 22

Identify which of the following are elements of magnitude of the risk in a breach of duty analysis.
(check all that apply)
O 1. Likelihood of injury
O 2. Practicability of taking precautions
O 3. Social utility of the conduct
O 4. Gravity of the likely harm

Answer 22

1,4

In assessing magnitude of the risk, courts consider likelihood of injury (1) and gravity of the potential harm (4). Practicability of precautions (2) and social utility (3) are on the other side of the balance.

Question 22

WHAT ARE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Answer 22

• Cause of incident unknown
• Thing causing damage under sole control of defendant
• Type of occurrence would not happen without negligence

Question 22

NEGLIGENCE RECAP

Answer 22

• Defendant owed claimant duty of care
• Defendant breached that duty by failing to meet required standard of care

Question 23

CAUSATION IN FACT WHEN MULTIPLE CAUSES Defendant's act materially contributed to harm

Answer 23

Defendant's act materially contributed to harm

Question 23

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE

Answer 23

* Duty of Care * Breach of Duty * Cause of Claimant's Injury

Question 23

CAUSATION IN FACT Usually use but for test

Answer 23

Usually use but for test

Question 24

Answer the question below based on the following facts: In support of a charity fundraising luncheon, two volunteers independently brought to the event a casserole dish made with ground beef. The two dishes were kept separate, and a luncheon guest took portions from both dishes. The guest became seriously ill with what was later determined to be a bacterial infection from negligently undercooked beef. Both dishes were found to contain the bacteria at a dangerous level. Can the guest establish causation in fact? O A. Yes, using the 'but for' test O B. Yes, using the 'material contribution' test O c. No

Answer 24

B. The guest can establish causation in fact using the 'material contribution' test (B) because two causes acted together to cause the harm. The ‘but for’ test (A) would not work because the guest would have become ill even if one of the volunteers was not negligent. However, because the guest ate from both harmful dishes, the guest can show that each volunteer’s breach of duty materially contributed to the guest’s harm.

Question 25

CAUSATION IN LAW

Answer 25

Remoteness of Damage

Question 26

DEFENCE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Answer 26

Will reduce damage award by claimant's share of fault

Question 27

Answer the following questions True or False: I. The duty that teachers owe to their students is an established duty of care. fill in blank 2. A rescuer does not owe a duty of care to the person being rescued. 3. The standard of care applied to children takes into account the specific child's intelligence and experience. 4. Res ipsa loquitur creates an inference that the defendant acted negligently. 5. A break in the chain of causation may arise through a natural event. 6. A claimant who was more at fault for the accident than the defendant cannot recover damages from the defendant.

Answer 27

1. True - The duty of care teachers owe to students is an established duty of care. 2. False - A rescuer owes a duty of care to the person being rescued not to make the situation worse. 3. False - While a child’s age is taken into account in determining the standard of care, the particular child’s intelligence and experience is not taken into account. 4. True - Res ipsa loquitur allows the court to infer that the defendant was in breach of duty. 5. True - A break in the chain of causation may arise through an intervening act of the claimant or a third party, or an intervening natural event. 6. False - A claimant’s contributory negligence, even if greater than the defendant’s, will only reduce the amount of the claimant’s recovery rather than bar it.

Question 28

What are the two categories of economic loss in negligence claims?

Answer 28

A: Consequential economic loss (related to physical injury/property damage) and pure economic loss (unconnected to physical damage). Example: After a contractor, John, negligently damages the water pipes while renovating Amy's kitchen, Amy incurs additional costs for water damage repairs and replacing ruined appliances (consequential economic loss). Meanwhile, Amy's neighbor, who shares a water supply, faces higher water bills due to the leak, despite no physical damage to their property (pure economic loss).

Question 29

What must a claimant prove to recover for pure economic loss?

Answer 29

A: A special relationship where the defendant assumed responsibility for the claimant's economic welfare. Example: Max, a tax consultant, agrees to prepare and file Linda's tax returns, assuring her of his expertise in tax law and compliance. Linda relies on Max's assurance and entrusts him with all her financial documents. Max, however, negligently files the returns, resulting in Linda facing hefty fines and penalties from the tax authority. Here, Max assumed a special responsibility for Linda's economic welfare, making him potentially liable for the financial losses incurred due to his negligence.

Question 30

Give an example of a situation where one can claim for pure economic loss.

Answer 30

A: An investor suffering loss due to a negligently prepared financial report by an accountant.

Question 31

What distinguishes a primary victim from a secondary victim in psychiatric harm cases?

Answer 31

A: Primary victims are at risk of physical injury themselves, while secondary victims witness harm to others.

Question 32

What additional criteria must a secondary victim meet to claim for psychiatric harm?

Answer 32

A: Foreseeable harm to a person of normal fortitude, close relationship with the harmed person, presence at the event or its immediate aftermath, and direct sensory experience.

Question 33

What is pure economic loss in negligence law?

Answer 33

A: Pure economic loss refers to financial loss not connected to physical harm or property damage. It's recoverable only if there's a special relationship where the defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant's economic welfare.

Question 34

Can pure economic loss be claimed in negligence without a special relationship?

Answer 34

A: No, pure economic loss requires a special relationship between the claimant and defendant, where the defendant has assumed responsibility for the claimant's economic welfare.

Question 35

What distinguishes a primary victim from a secondary victim in psychiatric harm cases?

Answer 35

A: A primary victim is endangered by the defendant's conduct and suffers psychiatric harm, while a secondary victim suffers psychiatric harm by witnessing harm to others but is not themselves endangered.

Question 36

What are the criteria for a duty of care in secondary victim psychiatric harm cases?

Answer 36

A: Foreseeability of psychiatric illness, close relationship with the harmed person, presence at the accident or its immediate aftermath, and direct witnessing of the events.

Question 37

What common negligence principles apply to both pure economic loss and psychiatric harm?

Answer 37

A: Both require establishing a breach of duty by showing the defendant fell below a reasonable standard of care, and proving that the breach caused the claimant's loss.

Question 38

Two TYPES OF EcOnOMIc Loss

Answer 38

Consequential economic loss * Pure economic loss

Question 39

For each of the following, identify whether the loss is pure economic loss or consequential economic loss: A: Pure economic loss B: Consequential economic loss 1. The claimant's car is damaged by the defendant's negligence, causing the claimant to lose fees from her ride-share business until the car is repaired. 2. The claimant relies on a solicitor's negligent analysis of a business and loses his investment when the business pure economic los fails. 3. The claimant's business has to suspend operations after the defendant negligently damages a water line leading to the plant, causing the claimant to lose profits from the suspension

Question 40

What distinguishes pure economic loss from consequential economic loss in negligence claims?

Answer 40

Pure economic loss is economic damage not connected to physical harm or property damage, whereas consequential economic loss arises from physical injury or property damage.

Question 41

How can a claimant recover for pure economic loss in tort law?

Answer 41

By proving a special relationship existed where the defendant assumed responsibility for the claimant's economic welfare, typically involving reliance on the defendant's expertise or information.

Question 42

What is the difference between a primary and secondary victim in claims for psychiatric harm?

Answer 42

A primary victim is endangered and suffers psychiatric harm, while a secondary victim witnesses harm to others and faces stricter recovery criteria, including a close relationship with the harmed and direct witnessing.

Question 43

What must be proven for a secondary victim to recover for psychiatric harm?

Answer 43

It must be foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric illness, there must be a close relationship with the harmed, presence at the scene or immediate aftermath, and direct witnessing of the event.

Question 44

What distinguishes pure economic loss from consequential economic loss in negligence claims?

Answer 44

Pure economic loss is unrelated to any physical damage and requires a special relationship for recovery, whereas consequential economic loss arises from physical injury or property damage and is recoverable under ordinary negligence rules.

Question 45

Under what conditions can pure economic loss be recovered in tort law?

Answer 45

Pure economic loss can be recovered if there is a special relationship between the claimant and defendant, where the defendant assumes responsibility for the claimant's economic welfare, typically through professional advice or services.

Question 46

What is the primary difference between primary and secondary victims in claims for psychiatric harm? Primary victims are those at risk of physical injury due to the defendant's negligence, while secondary victims are bystanders who suffer psychiatric harm from witnessing harm to others, without being in personal danger.

Answer 46

Primary victims are those at risk of physical injury due to the defendant's negligence, while secondary victims are bystanders who suffer psychiatric harm from witnessing harm to others, without being in personal danger.

Question 47

What four conditions must be met for a secondary victim to recover for psychiatric harm?

Answer 47

The conditions are: (1) psychiatric illness is foreseeable to a person of normal fortitude, (2) a close and loving relationship exists with the person harmed, (3) the claimant was present at the scene or its immediate aftermath, and (4) the claimant directly witnessed the events.

Question 48

Q5: How is the recovery for psychiatric harm limited in negligence law?

Answer 48

A5: Recovery is limited to cases where psychiatric harm is a recognized mental illness or shock-induced physical condition. Grief or fright alone is not recoverable, and special principles restrict liability, especially for secondary victims.

Question 49

A: Pure economic loss B: Consequential economic loss 1. The claimant’s car is damaged by the defendant’s negligence, causing the claimant to lose fees from her ride-share business until the car is repaired. 2. The claimant relies on a solicitor’s negligent analysis of a business and loses his investment when the business fails. 3. The claimant’s business has to suspend operations after the defendant negligently damages a water line leading to the plant, causing the claimant to lose profits from the suspension

Answer 49

1. B 2. A 3. A

Question 50

What are the three forms of an employer's liability in tort law?

Answer 50

A: The three forms are breach of personal duty of care, breach of specific statutory duty, and vicarious liability for torts committed by an employee.

Question 51

What does an employer's duty of care to its employees entail?

Answer 51

A: It includes providing competent staff, safe equipment, a secure work environment, and a safe system of work, tailored to each employee's needs considering their age, experience, and physical condition.

Question 52

What is vicarious liability, and when does it arise?

Answer 52

A: Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability where an employer is held responsible for torts committed by an employee if the tort was committed in the course of employment, regardless of the employer's fault.

Question 53

What criteria must be met for an act to be considered within the course of employment for vicarious liability purposes?

Answer 53

A: The act must be incidental to the job, authorized by the employer (either expressly or impliedly), or an authorized act carried out in a wrongful or negligent manner.

Question 54

How does the law differentiate between an employee and an independent contractor for vicarious liability purposes?

Answer 54

A: The differentiation is based on factors such as whether the individual agreed to work for a wage under the employer's control and the terms of the contract, with courts looking at the economic reality of the relationship rather than just contractual labels.

Question 55

What are the two main types of remedies in tort law?

Answer 55

The two main types of remedies are damages and injunctions.

Question 56

What is the aim of awarding damages in tort law?

Answer 56

The aim is to place the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not been committed.

Question 57

What is the difference between pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses?

Answer 57

Pecuniary losses are financial losses suffered by the claimant, such as loss of income, while non-pecuniary losses are associated with the injury itself, like pain and suffering.

Question 58

How is compensation for loss of future income calculated?

Answer 58

It's calculated by taking the claimant's pre-accident annual income and multiplying it by the predicted number of years of lost income, adjusted for contingencies of life.

Question 59

What happens to a tort claim if the claimant dies from their injuries?

Answer 59

The claim can survive for the benefit of the estate, and a new claim may arise for the dependents of the deceased for loss of dependency and bereavement damages.

Question 60

What is the primary focus of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?

Answer 60

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 focuses on an occupier's duty to ensure that premises are reasonably safe for visitors.

Question 61

How is a 'visitor' defined under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?

Answer 61

A 'visitor' under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 includes anyone whom the occupier has invited or permitted to be on the premises, or whom the law deems to have been invited, such as customers, guests, or statutory entrants.

Question 62

Under what conditions does the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 apply?

Answer 62

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 applies when a trespasser enters premises and the occupier is aware of a danger, knows trespassers may encounter this danger, and the risk is one that reasonably requires some form of protection.

Question 63

How does the duty of care to children differ from the general duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?

Answer 63

The duty of care to children under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 requires occupiers to anticipate that children may be less careful than adults and to take extra precautions to ensure their safety, considering that children may not recognize certain dangers.

Question 64

Can an occupier discharge their duty of care by warning visitors of potential dangers?

Answer 64

Yes, an occupier can discharge their duty of care by effectively warning visitors of potential dangers, provided the warning is sufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe.

Question 65

What are the key elements a claimant must prove under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for a defective product claim?

Answer 65

Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a claimant must prove the product contained a defect, they suffered damage, the damage was caused by the defect, and the defendant is a producer, own brander, or importer of the product.

Question 66

How does common law negligence apply to manufacturers in the context of defective products?

Answer 66

Under common law negligence, manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products, extending to anyone foreseeably affected by the product. This duty arises when the product is put into circulation in a form intended to reach the end consumer without expected intermediate inspection.

Question 67

What defenses are available under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for producers of defective products?

Answer 67

Defenses include proving the defect did not exist at the time of supply, the product was not supplied in the course of business, or the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time was not such that the producer could have discovered the defect (development risks or state of the art defense).

Question 68

Under what circumstances can breach of a specific statutory duty give rise to a civil claim?

Answer 68

A civil claim can arise from a breach of specific statutory duty if parliament intended the statute to protect a limited class, the claimant falls within that class, the statutory duty has been breached, and the claimant suffered the type of damage the statute aimed to prevent.

Question 69

What considerations are taken into account to determine if a product is defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Answer 69

Considerations include the marketing of the product, presentation including instructions and warnings, the use to which the product might reasonably be expected to be put, and the general state of the product's safety at the time of supply.

Question 70

What constitutes a public nuisance, and when can an individual claim for it?

Answer 70

Public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as obstructing a highway. An individual can claim if they suffer special damage beyond what the community experiences.

Question 71

What are the main considerations in determining whether an interference constitutes a private nuisance?

Answer 71

Considerations include the locality (context of the area), the utility of the defendant's conduct, duration of the interference, the claimant's sensitivity, malice from the defendant, and the foreseeability of damage.

Question 72

What defenses can be used against a private nuisance claim?

Answer 72

Defenses include prescription (continuation of nuisance for 20 years) and statutory authority (activity authorized by a statute).

Question 73

What are the essential elements of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher?

Answer 73

The rule requires that the defendant accumulated something likely to cause harm if it escapes, used the land for a non-natural purpose, and that the accumulated thing escaped and caused damage.

Question 74

Under what circumstances can an individual bring a civil action for public nuisance?

Answer 74

An individual can bring a civil action for public nuisance only if they have suffered special damage, which is distinct from the damage suffered by the general public.

Question 75

What differentiates assault from battery in tort law?

Answer 75

Assault involves causing someone to reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of force, whereas battery is the actual application of force. The key in assault is the apprehension of imminent harm, not the harm itself. Example: Threatening to punch someone in a manner that makes them fear immediate physical harm constitutes assault.

Question 76

How is false imprisonment defined in tort law? A4: False imprisonment is the unlawful constraint of a person's freedom of movement from a particular place without a reasonable means of escape. The restraint must be total, meaning no safe or reasonable alternative exists for the person to leave the area. Example: Locking someone in a room where the only escape would risk injury constitutes false imprisonment.

Answer 76

False imprisonment is the unlawful constraint of a person's freedom of movement from a particular place without a reasonable means of escape. The restraint must be total, meaning no safe or reasonable alternative exists for the person to leave the area. Example: Locking someone in a room where the only escape would risk injury constitutes false imprisonment.

Question 77

Explain the tort of conversion and how it differs from trespass to goods.

Answer 77

Conversion involves dealing with someone's goods in a manner seriously inconsistent with the owner's rights, effectively depriving them of their use and possession. Trespass to goods is a less severe interference with possession. Example: Throwing someone's personal belongings into a pond, thus depriving them of use, constitutes conversion.

Question 78

FOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYER DUTY OF CARE

Answer 78

FOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYER DUTY OF CARE * Competent fellow employees * Safe plant and equipment * Safe place to work * Safe system of work

Question 79

Identify whether the employer is likely to be liable to the injured employee: Y: Yes N: No 1. A just-hired coworker pushes the wrong button on a stamping machine while the employee’s hand is within it. 2. Driving home in the dark after having to work late, the employee’s car strikes a fallen tree in the road. 3. The employee is burned by a piece of equipment because of erroneous instructions prepared by a contractor hired by the employer

Answer 79

1.Yes 2. No 3. Yes

Question 80

EMPLOYER's VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Answer 80

EMPLOYER's VICARIOUS LIABILITY * Employer/employee relationship * Employee committed tort Tort committed during course of employment

Question 81

FACTORS INDICATING EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

Answer 81

FACTORS INDICATING EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP * Employee agrees to personally provide their skill and work * Employee agrees to be subject to employer's control * Contractual terms are consistent with employment

Question 82

Identify whether the stated fact makes the worker more likely to be an employee or an independent contractor: A: Employee B: Independent contractor 1. The worker brings his own tools to the worksite. 2. The worker is not permitted to delegate her duties to another party. 3. The worker is required to wear a uniform with the employer’s name on it.

Answer 82

1.B 2.A 3.A

Question 83

ESTABLISHING COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

Answer 83

ESTABLISHING COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT * Incidental to the employee's job * Expressly or impliedly authorised by employer Authorised act carried out wrongfully or negligently

Question 84

Answer the following True or False: 1. An employer's breach of its personal duty of care constitutes vicarious liability. 2. An employer may be liable to an employee injured by a coworker deliberately disobeying the rules. 3. An employer is not liable if it has delegated implementation of safety procedures to a competent independent contractor. 4. A claimant injured by an employee’s negligence on the job may sue both the employee and the employer. 5. An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional torts. 6. An employee making a delivery who stops at a bake shop along the way to get a scone is still acting within the scope of employment.

Answer 84

1.False An employer’s breach of its personal duty of care constitutes direct liability for the employer’s conduct rather than vicarious liability for the acts of another. 2.True An em­ployer who is aware that an employee regularly disobeys rules may be liable if this conduct causes injury to a fellow employee. 3.False An employer’s duty is nondelegable, so the employer remains liable for negligent conduct by an independent contractor hired by the employer to implement safety procedures. 4.True While in the vast majority of claims it’s the employer who will be sued due to the presence of compulsory insurance, technically a claimant can sue both the employer vicariously and the employee personally. 5.False An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional torts if the employee’s tort was so closely connected with the task the employee was employed to do that it would be considered to be incidental to the employee’s job. 6.True An employee’s minor deviation from her route, not amounting to a new and separate journey, is unlikely to take the employee outside the course of employment.

Question 85

What is vicarious liability?

Answer 85

Vicarious liability is when an entity (typically an employer) is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person (typically an employee) in the course of their employment. example: ChatGPT A company being held liable for damages caused by an employee who negligently crashes a company vehicle while making deliveries.

Question 86

A manufacturing company received a large order from a customer. Before the company manufactured the goods, they decided to check the financial position of the customer. They asked their bank to get a financial report from the customer's bank. The customer's bank replied favourably that the customer was "considered good for its ordinary business engagements". There was no fee for this advice. As a result, the company manufactured the goods and delivered them to the customer. However, the customer went bankrupt without paying for the goods and the company lost £50,000. The evidence showed that the customer's bank had acted negligently. The company sued the customer's bank in negligence. Which of the following statements best describes whether the manufacturing company has a claim against the customer's bank? A There is no claim because there is no duty of care between the manufacturing company and the customer's bank. B There is no claim because financial loss not caused by damage to person or property cannot be recovered in negligence. C There is no claim because the loss is too remote. D There is a claim because there is a special relationship between the parties creating a duty for the customer's bank to take reasonable care in giving advice. E There is a claim because the customer's bank has a general duty of care to anyone to whom they give advice.

Answer 86

D

Question 87

A claimant was involved in a minor road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. The claimant's car suffered minor damage to the bodywork. The claimant was not hurt in the accident but was very shocked. She is later diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD') caused by the shock of the accident. Which of the following statements best describes the outcome of a claim by the claimant against the defendant? A The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD because there was physical damage to the bodywork of the car. B The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD because she was in the area of danger created by the defendant's negligence. C The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD, provided she can show that it was reasonably foreseeable that involvement in the accident could cause psychiatric harm to a person in the claimant's position. D The claimant cannot recover damages for her PTSD because she did not suffer any physical injury in the accident. F The claimant cannot recover damages for her PTSD because she cannot show that it was caused by the defendant's breach of duty.

Answer 87

(B) The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD. She has suffered psychiatric harm without physical impact. As someone in the actual area of danger created by the defendant's negligence, she is a primary victim. As a primary victim, she is owed a duty of care in respect of her psychiatric harm, provided that there was a foreseeable risk of physical injury to her, which the traffic accident establishes. It also is clear that the duty has been breached (the defendant was negligent) and that the breach caused her damage (the PTSD was caused by the shock of the accident). (A) is not the best explanation. As stated above, the duty is owed because the claimant was in the area of danger. The fact that there was physical damage to the car may support the fact that the claimant was in the actual area of danger, but the correct choice provides a better explanation. (C) is not correct. Where the claimant is a primary victim, it is not necessary for psychiatric harm to be foreseeable as a result of the defendant's actions. (D) is not correct. The claimant can recover in respect of her psychiatric harm without physical impact, as stated above. (E) is not correct. The facts make clear that the defendant was in breach of duty and that the breach caused her damage.

Question 88

A man is driving his car along a road. As he approaches a pedestrian crossing, he does not see the traffic lights at red and he fails to stop. A woman who is crossing the road on the pedestrian crossing just manages to jump out of the path of the car. She is angry and shaken but is otherwise unhurt. Which of the following correctly describes why the man is not liable to the woman in the tort of negligence? A The man did not owe the woman a duty of care because it would not be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on him in these circumstances. B The man did not owe the woman a duty of care because there was not sufficient proximity between them in these circumstances. C The man did not owe the woman a duty of care in respect of failure to stop at the red light because no duty of care is owed in respect of an omission to act. D The man did owe the woman a duty of care, but the duty was not breached because the only cause of the incident was his omission to stop. E The man did owe the woman a duty of care and was in breach, but the breach of duty did not cause any actionable harm.

Answer 88

E

Question 89

On carefully examining a new patient, a doctor fails to notice the symptoms of a very rare allergy and prescribes a medicine to which the client is allergic. As a result, after taking the medicine, the patient suffers unpleasant side effects of severe headaches. However, the condition for which the medicine was prescribed is cured. In an action by the patient against the doctor in the tort of negligence, which of the following arguments is the doctor most likely to successfully rely on? A Given that the patient was cured of the condition for which she sought treatment, it would not be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the doctor in respect of the side effects. B The doctor did not fall below a reasonable standard of care because he examined the patient carefully and, because the allergy was rare, a reasonable doctor could have missed the symptoms. C The patient only suffered pure psychiatric harm in respect of which the doctor did not owe her a duty of care. D The court will apply the principles for a novel duty situation and likely conclude that, because she was a new patient, there was insufficient proximity between the parties for a duty of care to be owed to her. E The court will apply the principles for a novel duty situation and likely conclude that, because the allergy was rare, the patient was not a foreseeable victim, so no duty of care was owed to her.

Answer 89

(B) The best argument is that, while the doctor did owe his patient a duty of care, he did not fall below the standard of care. The doctor is required to meet the standard of care of an ordinary reasonable doctor, which, on the facts, he may have done. Thus, he has not breached his duty. (A), (D) and (E) are not correct because they each refer to the criteria applied in a novel duty situation, whereas doctor to patient is an established duty situation. (C) is not correct. A headache which was caused without physical impact on the claimant would be classed as pure psychiatric harm, but in this case the headache was caused by the administration of the medicine, so it had a physical cause.

Question 90

A man sees that a house on his street is on fire. He grabs a hosepipe and sprays water on the fire in an attempt to extinguish it and rescue the house from further damage. Whilst doing so, he accidentally sprays a jet of water on his neighbour's car. This causes damage to an electric component in the engine which will be expensive to repair. In an action by the neighbour against the man to recover the cost of repairs to the car, which of the following best describes the likely outcome? A The man is not liable because the cost of repairing the car is pure economic loss, in respect of which no duty of care is owed. B The man is not liable in the tort of negligence, but he is liable in the tort of trespass to goods because the water made direct contact with the car. C The man is not liable in either trespass or negligence because he did not intend to spray water onto the car. D The man is not liable because the social utility of his conduct in fighting the fire is likely to mean that he was not in breach of duty. E The man is not liable because no duty of care is ever owed by a person carrying out a rescue.

Answer 90

D The man is not liable because the social utility of his conduct in fighting the fire is likely to mean that he was not in breach of duty. (D) The man likely is not liable. The man may owe a duty of care to his neighbour, but he is not likely in breach of that duty because the social utility of his actions in fighting the fire will be taken into account, meaning he likely did not fall below a reasonable standard of care. (A) is not correct because the car suffered physical damage, so the cost of repairs is not pure economic loss. (B) is not correct because a trespass to goods requires an intentional interference with the claimant's goods, which was not the case here. (C) is not correct. It is true that his lack of intention means that he is not liable in trespass. It is also true that he is not likely to be liable in negligence - but not because of his lack of intention. Liability in negligence does not require an intention to cause harm. (E) is not correct. Although there is generally no duty to undertake a rescue, once a rescue is undertaken, there is a duty to exercise reasonable care not to make the situation worse than it would have been had the defendant not intervened. So, the man is likely to owe a duty of care to the neighbour whose car was damaged during the course of the rescue (but he is not likely to be in breach, as discussed above).QUESTION

Question 91

A solicitor went to work on a Saturday. When she signed in, the security guard told her that all staff were required to leave the building by 5.00 pm and were not authorised to remain on the premises after that time. However, at the end of the day the solicitor had not finished her work and so decided to remain after 5.00 pm. At 5.30 the security guard locked all the doors and left the premises. The guard carelessly failed to check whether everyone had left the building so he was not aware that the solicitor had remained there. When the solicitor tried to leave the premises, she discovered that she was locked in. She telephoned for help and was released about 30 minutes later. Which of the following statements best describes the outcome of a claim by the solicitor against the guard for false imprisonment? A The solicitor's claim is likely to succeed because the guard acted negligently in failing to check whether everyone had left the building. B The solicitor's claim is not likely to succeed because the solicitor became a trespasser by staying in the building past 5.00 p.m. C The solicitor's claim is likely to succeed provided she can show that she was harmed by the confinement. D The solicitor's claim in not likely to succeed because the guard did not know that she was locked in the building. E The solicitor's claim is likely to succeed but she will only recover nominal damages because of the very short period during which she was unable to leave the building.

Answer 91

(D) The solicitor's claim is unlikely to succeed. For a successful claim in false imprisonment, the defendant's actions in confining the claimant must be intentional. This is not satisfied because the guard did not know the solicitor was locked in the building. (A) is not correct. For a successful claim in false imprisonment it is not sufficient that the defendant acted negligently. (B) is not correct. The fact that the claimant became a trespasser by remaining in the building beyond the period for which she had permission would not prevent her from making a claim for false imprisonment. (C) is not correct. In a claim for false imprisonment, harm is not one of the elements that the claimant would need to show. (E) is not correct. The claim is not likely to succeed so there is no basis for any award of damages. QUESTION

Question 92

A farmer makes a haystack with hay that is not properly dry. The stack later catches fire and causes severe burns to a neighbour who comes to help fight the fire. Evidence shows that bacterial action in the damp hay had caused the stack to heat up and ignite. Some local landowners were aware of the danger of storing damp hay in a stack, but the farmer himself was not aware of the risk. In an action by the injured neighbour against the farmer in the tort of negligence, which of the following is true? A The farmer did not owe the neighbour a duty of care because the neighbour voluntarily came to help fight the fire. B The farmer did owe a duty of care to the neighbour but was not in breach of duty because the farmer was not aware of the risk from the damp hay. C The farmer did owe a duty of care and, to avoid being found in breach of duty, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an ordinary reasonable person would not have been aware of the risk from the damp hay. D The farmer did owe a duty of care and, to avoid being found in breach of duty, must prove on the balance of probabilities that an ordinary reasonable person would not have been aware of the risk from the damp hay. E The farmer did owe a duty of care and will be found liable if the neighbour can show that a reasonable person farming in the locality would have been aware of the risk from damp hay.

Answer 92

(E) The farmer owed his neighbour a duty of care, and he will be in breach of that duty if he fell below the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person in his position. The burden of proving breach of duty is on the neighbour as claimant. (A) is not correct because the farmer did owe a duty of care to his neighbour. A person who creates a dangerous situation owes a duty of care to a person who comes to the rescue. (B) is not correct. The farmer is in breach of duty if he fell below a reasonable standard of care; this standard is objective and impersonal. It does not depend on the farmer's own appreciation of the risk, but on whether a reasonable person in his position would have appreciated the risk. (C) and (D) are both incorrect because the burden of proving breach of duty is on the claimant, not the defendant. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, so answer (C) also states an incorrect standard.QUESTION

Question 93

An employer has two employees, X and Y, who work together. Recently, X very carelessly switched on a machine as Y was cleaning it, causing Y to suffer a serious injury. Prior to this incident X had no previous record of any kind of careless behaviour. The employer can prove that it checked X's qualifications before employing him and provided regular safety training during his employment. An expert's report on the machine shows that there was no defect in the machine, and it would have been safe if used properly. In a claim by Y against the employer to recover damages for the injury caused by X, which of the following statements best describes the outcome? A The employer is liable to Y because X committed a tort against Y during the course of his employment. B The employer is liable to Y because the employer owes Y a non-delegable duty of care, which has been breached. C The employer is not liable to Y because the employer took all reasonable care to ensure that X was properly qualified and had proper training. D The employer is not liable to Y because X had no previous record of carelessness, so the employer had no reason to anticipate his behaviour. F The employer is liable to Y because it happened in the workplace of which the employer is the occupier.

Answer 93

(A) The employer is liable to Y. X has committed the tort of negligence against Y. This tort was committed during the course of X's employment (on the facts, there was a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the tort). Therefore, the employer is vicariously liable to Y for X's tort. (B) is not correct because it does not state the correct reason why the employer is liable to Y. It is true that the employer owes a non-delegable duty of care to Y. However, on the facts, this duty does not appear to have been breached. The employer has taken reasonable care to provide a safe plant and safe equipment (the machine was not defective). The employer has taken reasonable care to provide competent fellow staff (X's qualifications were checked, and regular training provided. There is nothing to suggest that the employer failed to provide a safe place of work or safe system of work. (C) is not correct. The fact that the employer took reasonable care indicates that the employer was not in breach of its own duty to Y. However, the employer is vicariously liable to Y for the tort of X, as discussed above. (D) is not correct. The fact that X had no previous record of carelessness, so the employer had no reason to anticipate his behaviour, supports an argument that the employer did not fail in its duty to take reasonable care to provide competent fellow staff. However, the employer remains vicariously liable for the tort of X. (E) is not correct because it does not state the correct reason why the employer is liable to Y. As employer, and as occupier, the employer does owe duties in respect of the safety of the workplace. However, Y's injuries are not related to the safety of the workplace.QUESTION

Question 94

A woman borrowed a car from a friend to drive on a motoring holiday. The woman packed her luggage into the car. She then left the car in a car park but failed to pay for a ticket giving her the right to park there. Whilst she was away, a lorry driver crashed into the car. The car was so badly damaged that it was unusable. The woman had to hire a replacement car for the remainder of her motoring holiday. Also, all of her luggage which was in the car was destroyed and she had to spend a substantial amount on replacing it. In a claim by the woman against the lorry driver, which of the following statements is correct? A The woman cannot recover any damages for either the car or the luggage because the car was not legally parked. B The woman cannot recover any damages for either the car or the luggage because the car did not belong to her. C The woman cannot recover any damages for the car and replacement car hire, but she can recover for the cost of replacing her luggage. D The woman cannot recover any damages for the costs of hiring a replacement car nor for the cost of replacing her luggage because this is all pure economic loss. E The woman cannot recover any damages for the car, but she can recover for the cost of the replacement car hire and the cost of replacing the luggage.

Answer 94

(C) The woman can recover for the cost of her luggage. Damage to property which did not belong to the claimant is classed as pure economic loss and cannot be recovered. So, the woman cannot recover for the damage to the car and hire of a replacement because the car did not belong to her. However, she can recover for the cost of replacing the luggage because this is property which did belong to her, so the cost of replacing it is not pure economic loss. (B) is not correct. It correctly notes that damage to the car is not recoverable because it did not belong to the woman, but it incorrectly assumes that this also prevents recovery in respect of the luggage. (D) is not correct because it incorrectly assumes that all of the losses are pure economic loss. (A) is not correct. It assumes that the defence of illegality would apply. The law of tort does not permit a claimant to base a claim on her own illegal act. However, the fact that the car was not legally parked is only part of the background circumstances. The claim is not based on illegal conduct, so the defence of illegality will not apply. (E) is not correct. The woman cannot recover for the cost of the replacement car hire because it did not flow from damage to her own property; rather, it flowed from damage to a car that did not belong to her. QUESTION

Question 95

A teacher allowed a class of 10-year-old schoolchildren to go outside and play football in the playground. She left them unsupervised for 10 minutes. During that time, one of the pupils kicked a football out of the playground into the road. He ran after it and was hit by a car on the road and injured. In a negligence action by the pupil against the teacher, which of the following is true? A The teacher is not liable because the harm suffered by the pupil was caused by his own carelessness in kicking the ball and then running into the road. B The teacher is not liable because she did not owe a duty of care to the pupil in respect of her omission to supervise. C The teacher is not liable because it would not be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on her towards the pupil in the circumstances. D The teacher is liable because, by leaving him unsupervised, she breached the duty of care which she owed to him. F The teacher is liable because a court, applying the principles for a novel duty situation, is likely to find that she owed a duty of care to the pupil because it was foreseeable that he would suffer harm.

Answer 95

(D) The teacher is liable. The teacher owed a duty of care to the pupil. By leaving the class unsupervised she fell below a reasonable standard of care and so was in breach of duty. (E) is not correct because teacher to pupil is an established duty situation, so it is not a novel duty situation. Similarly, (C) is not correct because it refers to the criteria for imposing a dutv in a novel duty situation. (A) is not correct. The pupil's carelessness could result in a finding of contributory negligence (though the child's age would be taken into account) but does not prevent the teacher from being liable. (B) is not correct. The special relationship between teacher and pupil (similar to that between parent and child) means that she does owe him a duty of care in respect of her omission to supervise. QUESTION

Question 96

After a sporting event at a stadium, one of the fans sought out the referees to complain about their handling of the game. The fan took out a loudhailer and knocked on the door of the referees' room. When one of the referees opened it, the fan began yelling at the referee through the loudhailer. The referee slammed the door shut, striking the loudhailer and jamming it against the fan's mouth, knocking out two of his teeth. Which of the following statements is correct? A The fan can have no claim of any kind against the referee because the referee did not intend to strike the fan. B The fan can have no claim in battery against the referee because the referee did not directly touch the fan. C The fan can have a claim in negligence against the referee if the referee's actions amounted to a failure to take reasonable care. D The fan can have no claim in battery against the referee because the referee's action of slamming the door shut was not unlawful. F The fan can have no claim of any kind against the referee because the referee did not foresee that his actions could damage the fan's teeth.

Answer 96

(C) If the referee acted carelessly in striking the fan, there could be a claim in the tort of negligence. The claimant would have to show that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the defendant's breach caused damage to the claimant. (A) is not correct. Even if the referee did not intend to strike the fan, he may still have done so carelessly, so there could be a claim in the tort of negligence. (B) is not correct. A battery can be committed by striking someone with an object. (D) is not correct. In a claim for battery, the claimant need not show that the defendant's action was unlawful, but that the defendant applied unlawful force. A lawful action by the defendant may still apply unlawful force. (E) is not correct. If the referee acted carelessly in striking the fan, there could be a claim in the tort of negligence. Establishing a duty of care and breach of such duty would depend on what a reasonable person would have foreseen, not on what the referee himself foresaw.QUESTION

Question 97

A householder wished to plant a hedge between his land and that of his neighbour. He carefully noted the position of the existing wooden fence posts between the two properties. He dug a hole next to each fence post and planted a bush in it. The neighbour is now angry because the trees have in fact been planted on land which belongs to him. He has proved this by producing a plan which shows that the existing fence posts are situated wholly on his side of the boundary, so that the bushes have been planted on his land. If the neighbour pursues a claim in tort against the householder, which of the following statements is correct? A The householder has committed the tort of trespass to land because he has caused damage to the land. B The householder has not committed the tort of trespass to land because planting a bush does not amount to causing damage to the land. C The householder has committed the tort of trespass to land because he has carried out an intentional and direct interference with the neighbour's possession of land. D The householder has not committed the tort of trespass to land because the householder did not intend to trespass on his neighbour's land. E The householder has not committed the tort of trespass to land because the householder acted with reasonable care in following the line of the existing fence.

Answer 97

(C) The householder has committed trespass to land. By digging a hole and planting a bush on land belonging to his neighbour, the householder has carried out an intentional and direct interference with the neighbour's possession of land and so has committed the tort of trespass to land. (A) is not correct because it does not give the correct reason. Proof of damage is not an element required to establish the tort. (B) is not correct. Damage is not required to establish a trespass. (Also, planting a bush would amount to causing damage). (D) is not correct. Trespass does require intention. However, the defendant only needs to intend his actions. He does not need to know that the land belonged to another or intend to commit a trespass. (E) is not correct. The householder intended his actions in planting the bushes and this is sufficient to establish a trespass. Liability does not depend on a failure to take reasonable care or on knowing that the land belonged to another.QUESTION ID:

Question 98

TWO TYPES OF LOSSES

Answer 98

* Pecuniary Losses * Nonpecuniary Losses

Question 99

THREE COMPONENTS OF PECUNIARY LOSSES

Answer 99

THREE COMPONENTS OF PECUNIARY LOSSES * Loss of past income Loss of future income Expenses

Question 100

NONPECUNIARY LOSSES

Answer 100

NONPECUNIARY LOSSES * Pain and suffering * Loss of amenity

Question 101

Classify each of the following as a pecuniary loss or a nonpecuniary loss: A: Pecuniary loss B: Nonpecuniary loss 1. Shortened life expectancy 2. Loss of amenity 3. Loss of future income

Answer 101

1.A Shortened life expectancy is a pecuniary loss because it results in financial harm, specifically a loss of future earnings. 2.B Loss of amenity, which is the loss of the claimant’s ability to enjoy life, is a nonpecuniary loss because it is not monetary in nature. 3.A Loss of future income is a pecuniary loss because it constitutes financial harm, reflecting losses that will occur in the future.

Question 102

Two TYPES OF DAMAGES ON DEATH

Answer 102

Two TYPES OF DAMAGES ON DEATH * Claims that survive claimant's death * Claims by dependants of deceased victim

Question 103

DAMAGES FOR DEPENDANTS AND BEREAVEMENT

Answer 103

DAMAGES FOR DEPENDANTS AND BEREAVEMENT * Claimants financially dependent on deceased * Deceased could have brought claim if survived

Question 104

Answer the following True or False: 1. The duty to mitigate constitutes a nonpecuniary loss. 2. Loss of future income is a type of general damages. 3. Damages for loss of future income is awarded in installments. 4. Nonpecuniary losses are a type of general damages. 5. A victim’s claim will survive his death even if the cause of death is unrelated to the claim. 6. The deceased’s contributory negligence does not affect the damages that dependents can recover.

Answer 104

1.False The duty to mitigate is not a loss of the claimant but rather a duty to reduce damages. 2. True Loss of future income is a type of general damages because it is difficult to precisely calculate and so must be assessed by the court. 3.False Damages for loss of future income is awarded in one lump sum at the time of trial or settlement. 4.True Nonpecuniary losses are a type of general damages because they cannot be precisely calculated. 5.True A victim’s claim will survive his death regardless of whether the death was caused by the tort in question or by an unrelated cause. 6.False A decedent’s contributory negligence will be taken into account and damages reduced in the same way as for a living claimant.

Question 105

Premises:

Answer 105

Premises: land and fixed and moveable structures

Question 106

Occupier:

Answer 106

Occupier: person with control over premises

Question 107

Covers harm only from conditions on premises

Answer 107

Covers harm only from conditions on premises

Question 108

1957 Act: Visitors 1984 Act: Trespassers

Answer 108

1957 Liability Act: Visitors VISITOR * Invited on premises by occupier * Permitted on premises by occupier * Permitted on premises by statute Visitors exceeding scope of permission may become trespassers TWO CLASSES OF VISITORS * Children * Skilled visitors 1984 Act: Trespassers DEFENCES UNDER 1957 Аст * Contributory negligence * Exclusion of liability for property damage Trespassers protected under 1984 Act for personal injury but not property damage

Question 109

For each question, state whether the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 applies. Y: Yes N: No 1. The playmate of the occupier’s child falls out of a treehouse on the premises. 2. The playmate of the occupier’s child is struck in the head by a carelessly swung bat on the premises. 3. A utility worker trips on a high step when entering the premises to read a meter. 4. A fan at a stadium slips on the floor after entering an area marked ‘athletes only’.

Answer 109

1. Yes The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 applies to harm to lawful visitors on the property from conditions on the property. In this case, the playmate of the occupier’s child has been invited on the property and so is a lawful visitor. 2. NO The Act applies to harmful conditions on the property and does not apply to activities. 3. Yes A utility worker enters under implied permission and is therefore a lawful visitor. 4.No A lawful visitor may become a trespasser by entering a part of the premises that is restricted.

Question 110

STANDARD OF CARE OWED TO VISITORS * Reasonable care under circumstances * So visitors will be reasonably safe using premises

Answer 110

STANDARD OF CARE OWED TO VISITORS * Reasonable care under circumstances * So visitors will be reasonably safe using premises

Question 111

NEGLIGENCE BALANCING TEST

Answer 111

NEGLIGENCE BALANCING TEST Magnitude of risk VS. Practicability of taking precautions

Question 111

WAYS TO KEEP VISITORS REASONABLY SAFE

Answer 111

WAYS TO KEEP VISITORS REASONABLY SAFE * Fix hazard Hire contractor to fix hazard Erect barriers around hazard Warn visitors of hazard

Question 112

THREE CONDITIONS FOR DUTY OF CARE TO TRESPASSERS

Answer 112

THREE CONDITIONS FOR DUTY OF CARE TO TRESPASSERS * Occupier knows or should know of danger on premises * Occupier knows or should know trespasser in vicinity * Occupier reasonably could be expected to offer protection against danger

Question 113

Answer the following True or False: 1. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies to trespassers injured by an activity on the land. 2. There are two ‘reasonableness’ requirements in the duty owed under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. 3. An occupier remains liable for a dangerous condition created on the premises by an independent contractor even if the occupier acted reasonably in selecting the contractor. 4. A business operator may exclude liability for property damage caused by conditions on the premises under the 1957 Act. 5. The occupier must actually be aware that the trespasser is on the premises for a duty to arise under the 1984 Act. 6. A warning to a trespasser of a dangerous pathway will not satisfy the duty owed under the 1984 Act unless an alternate route is provided.

Answer 113

1.False The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies to injuries arising out of a condition of the land and not an activity. 2.True The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 requires the occupier to use reasonable care under the circumstances to keep visitors reasonably safe in using the premises. 3.False Occupiers will not be liable for the negligence of independent contractors that cause harm to visitors on the premises if the occupier delegated the duty reasonably. 4.True An occupier acting in the course of a business may inform visitors that no liability is accepted for damage to or loss of property. 5.False A duty also arises under the 1984 Act if the occupier should reasonably be aware that a trespasser may be in the vicinity of the danger. 6.False Unlike under the 1957 Act, a warning of a danger under the 1984 Act will satisfy the duty owed even if an alternate route is not provided.

Question 114

PRODUCT MANUFACTURER DUTY OF CARE

Answer 114

PRODUCT MANUFACTURER DUTY OF CARE * Put out product in final form intended to reach consumer * No reasonable expectation of inspection by intermediary

Question 115

PROVING BREACH OF DUTY

Answer 115

PROVING BREACH OF DUTY * * Show manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care Infer breach of duty because defect exists

Question 116

ELEMENTS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION Act 1987

Answer 116

ELEMENTS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION Act 1987 Product contained a defect * Claimant suffered damage Damage caused by defect * Defendant is producer, own brander, or importer

Question 117

DAMAGE SUFFERED BY CLAIMANT

Answer 117

DAMAGE SUFFERED BY CLAIMANT Personal injury or death * Property if for private use and damage over £275 No recovery for damage to defective product itself

Question 118

PRODUCER OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

Answer 118

PRODUCER OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT * Manufacturer of finished product * Manufacturer of product component * Processor of product

Question 119

State whether the claimant may have a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1987: Y: Yes N: No 1. The claimant suffers over £275 in damages to its business inventory as a result of a product defect. 2. The claimant’s refrigerator needs over £275 in repairs because of a defective compressor. 3. The defendant put its brand name on the defective product even though it did not manufacture or assemble it.

Answer 119

1. No Damage to business property is excluded from coverage under the Act. 2. No Damage to the defective product itself cannot be recov­ered under the Act; this claim must be pursued in contract. 3. Yes, The Act applies to an ‘own brander’ that holds itself out as a producer of the product by putting its own name or trademark on it.

Question 120

DEFENCES UNDER 1987 Аст

Answer 120

DEFENCES UNDER 1987 Аст * Defect did not exist when producer supplied product Product not supplied in course of business Existence of defect not discoverable at time product supplied

Question 121

THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTE TO APPLY

Answer 121

THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTE TO APPLY * Claimant falls within class protected by statutory duty * Statutory duty breached by defendant * Claimant suffered type of damage statute intended to protect against

Question 122

Answer the following True or False: 1. In a negligence action against the manufacturer of a defective product, a court may infer breach of duty from the existence of the defect itself. 2. In an action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the claimant must establish that the defendant was at fault in manufacturing a defective product. 3. One who receives a defective product as a gift may be a claimant under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. 4. The 'state of the art' defence allows a defendant to show that the existence of a defect was not discoverable at the time of supplying the product. 5. A statute will give rise to a civil claim only if the statute expressly creates a cause of action based on violation of the statute. 6. A statute may give rise to a civil claim if the statute imposes a duty for the protection of a limited class of the public.

Answer 122

1.True Using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a court may infer breach of duty from the existence of the defect itself in a negligence action against the manufacturer of a defective product. 2.False The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is a strict liability statute; it does not require the claimant to establish that the defendant was at fault. 3.True The Consumer Protection Act 1987 extends protection to anyone who suffers damage caused by a defect in the product. 4.True In defending a claim under the 1987 Act, a defendant may show that the existence of a defect was not discoverable at the time of supplying the product. 5.False A statute also may give rise to a civil claim even if it was silent on this issue, as long as that was Parliament's intent. 6.True One of the requirements for a statute to give rise to a civil claim is that the statute imposes a duty for the protection of a limited class of the public.

Question 124

SPECIAL DAMAGE FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE ACTION

Answer 124

SPECIAL DAMAGE FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE ACTION * Damage to property Personal injury * Loss of profits

Question 125

Private nuisance:

Answer 125

Private nuisance: unlawful interference with person's use or enjoyment of land

Question 126

WAYS PRIVATE NUISANCE MAY ARISE

Answer 126

WAYS PRIVATE NUISANCE MAY ARISE * Encroachment on land * Physical damage to property * Interference with comfort or convenience

Question 127

POTENTIAL DEFENDANTS

Answer 127

POTENTIAL DEFENDANTS * Creator of nuisance Occupier of land containing nuisance Landlord of land occupier (limited)

Question 128

Identify whether the activity is more likely to be actionable as a public nuisance or a private nuisance: A: Public nuisance B: Private nuisance 1. Claimant's car parked on her property suffers pitting and discoloration from acidic deposits caused by Defendant's chemical plant. 2. Claimant's car suffers rear-end damage after it is struck by another car because smoke from Defendant's brush fire has obscured visibility on the road. 3. Claimant's car is stuck in the driveway because Defendant, without a permit, dug a utility trench across the road and the trench blocks the driveway's exit.

Answer 128

1.B A public nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with recognised public rights; a claimant may bring a civil action for a public nuisance if the claimant suffered special damage over and above that of the community at large. A private nuisance involves an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land. In this case, an action for private nuisance may arise from actual physical damage to the claimant's property from the defendant's activities. 2.A Under the definitions given above, the smoke that is obscuring visibility on the road is a public nuisance, and the claimant's car has suffered damage as a result. 3. A. Under the definitions given above, the unauthorised trench across the public road is a public nuisance, and the claimant has suffered special damage because the trench blocks the driveway.

Question 129

Unlawful interference = substantial

Answer 129

Unlawful interference = substantial

Question 130

NUISANCE DEFENCES

Answer 130

NUISANCE DEFENCES * Prescription * Statutory authority

Question 131

COMPONENTS OF RYLaNDS V FLETCHeR RULE

Answer 131

COMPONENTS OF RYLaNDS V FLETCHeR RULE * Defendant brought something on land likely to cause harm if it escapes *Defendant engaged in non-natural use of land * Thing on land escapes and causes harm

Question 132

COMPONENTS OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER RULE

Answer 132

COMPONENTS OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER RULE * * Defendant brought something on land likely to cause harm if it escapes Defendant engaged in non-natural use of land Thing on land escapes and causes harm

Question 133

Answer the following True or False: 1. A public nuisance requires a continuous interference. 2. A tenant in an apartment building next door to a 24-hour truck terminal can sue for private nuisance. 3. The defendant's motive in conducting an activity that interferes with the claimant's use of their land is irrelevant. 4. For statutory authority to serve as a defence in a private nuisance action, the statute must expressly authorise the activity. 5. Liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher does not require fault on the part of the defendant. 6. The most restrictive requirement for recovery under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is that the defendant was engaged in a non-natural use of land.

Answer 133

1.False An isolated incident may give rise to a public nuisance if the interference is unreasonable. 2.True A private nuisance may be brought by the tenant because a tenant is an occupier with a recognised legal interest in the land. 3. False An otherwise ordinary activity, such as playing music, might be considered unreasonable if a neighbour can show it was done for the deliberate purpose of upsetting the neighbour. 4. False A statute may expressly or impliedly authorise an activity that constitutes a nuisance. 5.True The rule in Rylands v Fletcher allows for imposition of liability without the claimant having to show any fault on the part of the defendant. 6. True Courts equate the concept of non-natural use with 'extraordinary' or 'abnormal' use, and the element of Rylands v Fletcher is the most difficult to establish.