CILEx L3 Tort Law Basics 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: What is the 'but for' test in causation?
- But for the defendant's negligence, would the claimant have suffered the damage? (Correct answer)
- Whether the defendant could have foreseen the damage
- Whether the defendant's act was the immediate cause of the damage
- Whether the defendant intended to cause the damage
Correct answer: But for the defendant's negligence, would the claimant have suffered the damage?
The 'but for' test (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969]) asks: but for the defendant's negligence, would the claimant have suffered the damage? If the damage would have occurred anyway, causation is not established.
Question 2: What is the 'thin skull' (eggshell skull) rule?
- A tortfeasor must take their victim as they find them, even if pre-existing conditions make damage worse (Correct answer)
- Damages are limited to foreseeable harm only
- The claimant cannot recover for pre-existing conditions
- Defendants are only liable for harm to healthy individuals
Correct answer: A tortfeasor must take their victim as they find them, even if pre-existing conditions make damage worse
The thin skull (or eggshell skull) rule requires a defendant to take their victim as they find them. If a claimant has a pre-existing vulnerability that makes the damage worse, the defendant is still liable for the full extent of the harm.
Question 3: What is the test for remoteness of damage in negligence?
- The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, even if the extent is not (Wagon Mound [1961]) (Correct answer)
- All consequences of negligence are recoverable
- Only direct physical consequences are recoverable
- The damage must have been contemplated by both parties
Correct answer: The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, even if the extent is not (Wagon Mound [1961])
Under the Wagon Mound test (Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock [1961]), the defendant is only liable for types of damage that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act, even if the precise extent was not.
Question 4: What is 'volenti non fit injuria'?
- A defence that the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury (Correct answer)
- A claim that the defendant acted intentionally
- The principle that injury must be suffered for a tort claim
- A rule that the claimant must prove the defendant knew of the risk
Correct answer: A defence that the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury
Volenti non fit injuria ('to one who consents, no injury is done') is a complete defence in tort where the claimant voluntarily and knowingly accepted the risk of injury. If successful, it extinguishes the claim entirely.
Question 5: What is 'private nuisance'?
- An indirect, unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land (Correct answer)
- Physical trespass onto another's land
- A public disturbance affecting many people
- Noise that exceeds legal decibel limits
Correct answer: An indirect, unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land
Private nuisance is an indirect, continuous interference with the claimant's use and enjoyment of their land, or an interference with their legal rights over it. It requires unreasonable interference judged by its type, duration, and locality.
Question 6: What is 'public nuisance'?
- An act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort of a class of Her Majesty's subjects (Correct answer)
- Noise disturbance on public roads
- Any nuisance occurring in a public place
- A nuisance that is prosecuted by the local authority
Correct answer: An act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort of a class of Her Majesty's subjects
Public nuisance is an act or omission that endangers the life, safety, health, or comfort of the public, or obstructs the public in the exercise of rights common to all. It is a crime and can also give rise to civil liability.
CILEx L3 Tort Law Basics 2
What is the 'but for' test in causation?