CILEx L6 Tort Law 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, section 2(2), the 'common duty of care' owed to lawful visitors requires the occupier to:
- Guarantee the absolute safety of all visitors at all times
- Warn all visitors of every known hazard on the premises before entry
- Take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that visitors will be reasonably safe in using the premises (Correct answer)
- Ensure the premises comply with all applicable health and safety legislation at all times
Correct answer: Take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that visitors will be reasonably safe in using the premises
Section 2(2) OLA 1957 imposes a 'common duty of care': the occupier must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.
Question 2: Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, section 1(3), a duty to trespassers arises only when:
- The occupier is aware of the danger, has reasonable grounds to believe trespassers may come near it, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer protection (Correct answer)
- The trespasser is a child, the danger is concealed, and the occupier created the hazard
- The occupier explicitly invited the trespasser onto the land before the relevant risk materialised
- The trespasser suffers personal injury rather than mere property damage on the premises
Correct answer: The occupier is aware of the danger, has reasonable grounds to believe trespassers may come near it, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer protection
Section 1(3) OLA 1984 requires three conditions: the occupier knows of or should know of the danger; has reasonable grounds to believe the trespasser may come near it; and in all the circumstances it is reasonable to offer some protection against the risk.
Question 3: In Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936], the defendant fired guns near the claimant's fox farm out of spite, causing the foxes to miscarry. The court held:
- The act was lawful on the defendant's own land and therefore could not constitute a nuisance
- Malice can convert what would otherwise be a lawful act into an actionable private nuisance (Correct answer)
- The claimant was entitled to an injunction but not damages because the harm was not foreseeable
- Malice automatically entitles the claimant to exemplary damages in addition to compensation
Correct answer: Malice can convert what would otherwise be a lawful act into an actionable private nuisance
The court held that the defendant's malicious purpose transformed the otherwise lawful act of firing guns on his own land into an actionable private nuisance, illustrating that motive can be relevant in nuisance law.
Question 4: In Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003], the House of Lords confirmed that the 'non-natural use' requirement in Rylands v Fletcher means:
- Any use of land that has not been approved by planning permission
- A special use bringing with it increased danger to others, beyond ordinary use of land (Correct answer)
- Use of the land for industrial or commercial purposes rather than residential purposes
- Any accumulation of water or other liquid substance on private land
Correct answer: A special use bringing with it increased danger to others, beyond ordinary use of land
The House of Lords in Transco confirmed that non-natural use means a special use of land that brings increased danger to others beyond the ordinary use of land, holding that a large pipe supplying water to a block of flats was not non-natural use.
Question 5: Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 introduced a 'serious harm' threshold. This requires that:
- The claimant must prove identifiable financial loss caused directly by the defamatory statement
- A statement is not defamatory unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation (Correct answer)
- The court must refer the complaint to a media regulator before hearing the defamation claim
- The defendant's statement must have been published to a substantial and influential audience
Correct answer: A statement is not defamatory unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation
Section 1 Defamation Act 2013 raises the threshold for bringing a defamation claim: the statement must have caused or be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation, preventing trivial claims from proceeding.
Question 6: The statutory defence of 'publication on a matter of public interest' under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 replaced which earlier defence?
- The common law defence of fair comment
- The common law defence of absolute privilege
- The Reynolds privilege for responsible journalism in the public interest (Correct answer)
- The common law defence of justification
Correct answer: The Reynolds privilege for responsible journalism in the public interest
Section 4 Defamation Act 2013 replaced and codified the common law Reynolds privilege (from Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001]), creating a broader statutory defence available to any defendant who publishes responsibly on a matter of public interest.
Question 7: The defence of volenti non fit injuria differs from contributory negligence in which fundamental respect?
- Volenti applies only where the claimant consented to the risk in writing before the tort occurred
- Volenti is a complete defence that defeats the entire claim, while contributory negligence only reduces the damages awarded (Correct answer)
- Volenti applies to all torts whereas contributory negligence is available only in negligence claims
- Volenti shifts the burden of proof entirely to the defendant, whereas contributory negligence does not
Correct answer: Volenti is a complete defence that defeats the entire claim, while contributory negligence only reduces the damages awarded
Volenti non fit injuria, if made out, is a complete bar to the claim (as confirmed in ICI v Shatwell [1965]), whereas contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 leads only to a proportionate reduction in damages.
CILEx L6 Tort Law 2
Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, section 2(2), the 'common duty of care' owed to lawful visitors requires the occupier to: