NPPE Tort Law and Negligence 2

Question 1

Which of the following best states the elements that a plaintiff must prove in a negligence action against a professional engineer in Canada?

Accepted Answer

Duty of care, breach, causation, and damages

Answer

A successful negligence claim requires proof of all four elements: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the plaintiff's harm (causation); and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual damage.

Question 2

What is 'res ipsa loquitur' and in what type of engineering negligence case might it apply?

Accepted Answer

The thing speaks for itself — allows an inference of negligence from the very occurrence of an accident that would not normally happen without negligence

Answer

Res ipsa loquitur allows a court to infer negligence from the occurrence of an accident that, in ordinary circumstances, would not occur without negligence — shifting the evidentiary burden to the defendant to provide an explanation.

Question 3

What is the 'thin skull rule' (or 'eggshell skull rule') in Canadian tort law, and how does it affect professional liability claims?

Accepted Answer

A defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them — if the plaintiff has a pre-existing vulnerability, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if it is greater than expected

Answer

The thin skull rule requires a defendant to take the plaintiff as they find them. If the plaintiff's pre-existing condition makes them more vulnerable to harm, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, even if it is disproportionate to what a normal person would have suffered.

Question 4

Under Canadian law, which type of economic loss arising from professional negligence typically faces the highest legal hurdles to recovery?

Accepted Answer

Pure economic loss (financial loss unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage)

Answer

Pure economic loss — financial harm not consequential on physical injury or property damage — is traditionally the most difficult category to recover in negligence, requiring satisfaction of additional legal requirements beyond the standard negligence elements.

Question 5

Which defence in tort law allows a defendant to argue that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk of injury?

Accepted Answer

Volenti non fit injuria

Answer

Volenti non fit injuria ('to a willing person, injury is not done') is a complete defence that bars recovery if the plaintiff fully and voluntarily accepted the legal risk of the harm that occurred.

NPPE - National Professional Practice Examination Practice Test

NPPE - National Professional Practice Examination Practice Test

NPPE Tort Law and Negligence 2