SQE Tort Law 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: In negligence, which of the following correctly states the three-part test established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]?
- Foreseeability of damage, proximity between the parties, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Correct answer)
- Intentional act, causation, and resulting harm to the claimant
- Breach of statutory duty, damage, and causation
- Reasonable reliance, assumption of responsibility, and economic loss
Correct answer: Foreseeability of damage, proximity between the parties, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
The Caparo three-part test requires: (1) the damage was foreseeable, (2) there was proximity between claimant and defendant, and (3) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Question 2: A defendant owes a claimant a duty of care. The claimant suffers a broken leg after the defendant's negligent driving. Which 'but for' test formulation from Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] best describes causation?
- The damage would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach of duty (Correct answer)
- The defendant's act was the last act in the chain of causation
- The defendant's breach was a substantial cause of the damage
- The damage was within the reasonable contemplation of the defendant
Correct answer: The damage would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach of duty
The 'but for' test asks whether the damage would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach; if the claimant would have suffered the same harm anyway, causation is not established.
Question 3: Which case established that an employer owes a non-delegable duty of care to employees that cannot be discharged by entrusting safety to an independent contractor?
- Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co v English [1938] (Correct answer)
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]
- Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]
Correct answer: Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co v English [1938]
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co v English established that an employer's duty to provide safe premises, equipment, a safe system of work, and competent fellow employees is non-delegable.
Question 4: Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, what standard of care does an occupier owe to lawful visitors?
- The common duty of care: to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to keep visitors safe (Correct answer)
- A strict liability standard regardless of the precautions taken
- The same duty as owed to trespassers under the 1984 Act
- A duty to warn of all risks on the premises, however minor
Correct answer: The common duty of care: to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to keep visitors safe
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2(2) imposes a 'common duty of care' requiring the occupier to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to keep the visitor reasonably safe.
Question 5: In the tort of private nuisance, which element must the claimant establish regarding their interest in land?
- The claimant must have a proprietary or exclusive possessory interest in the affected land (Correct answer)
- The claimant must be a mere licensee with permission to use the land
- The claimant need only show they were physically present on the land at the time
- The claimant must own the freehold title to the property
Correct answer: The claimant must have a proprietary or exclusive possessory interest in the affected land
Following Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997], only those with a proprietary or exclusive possessory interest in the land (e.g., owner or tenant) can sue in private nuisance.
Question 6: Which principle from Rylands v Fletcher (1868) imposes strict liability on a defendant?
- A person who brings onto land something likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at their peril (Correct answer)
- Any interference with a neighbour's land gives rise to automatic liability
- An occupier is strictly liable for all acts of independent contractors on their land
- Strict liability arises whenever a non-natural use of land causes foreseeable harm
Correct answer: A person who brings onto land something likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at their peril
Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability where a defendant brings onto land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it does escape causing damage; non-natural use of land is also required.
Question 7: The defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent) in tort requires which of the following?
- The claimant must have voluntarily agreed to accept both the physical and legal risk of the defendant's negligence (Correct answer)
- The claimant merely knew of the risk without taking any formal precautions
- The defendant must have obtained the claimant's written consent before the tortious act
- The claimant's contributory negligence must have exceeded 50%
Correct answer: The claimant must have voluntarily agreed to accept both the physical and legal risk of the defendant's negligence
Volenti requires that the claimant freely and voluntarily agreed to accept the legal risk (not just the physical risk) of injury, as confirmed in ICI v Shatwell [1965].
SQE Tort Law 1
In negligence, which of the following correctly states the three-part test established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]?