SQE Tort Law 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which test does an English court apply to determine whether a defendant's breach of duty in negligence has caused psychiatric injury to a 'secondary victim'?
- The claimant must satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms: proximity in time/space, perception through unaided senses, and close tie of love and affection (Correct answer)
- The claimant must show they were within the zone of physical danger created by the defendant
- The claimant need only establish that psychiatric injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act
- The claimant must demonstrate they witnessed the event on live broadcast television
Correct answer: The claimant must satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms: proximity in time/space, perception through unaided senses, and close tie of love and affection
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] established that secondary victims must prove: a close tie of love and affection, proximity to the accident or its immediate aftermath, and perception through their own unaided senses.
Question 2: Under the rule in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], what principle was established by the House of Lords?
- A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them without a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination (Correct answer)
- Manufacturers are strictly liable to all persons injured by defective products regardless of fault
- A duty of care is owed by all persons to all others who may foreseeably be affected by their acts
- Negligence requires proof of an intentional disregard for the claimant's safety
Correct answer: A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them without a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination
Donoghue v Stevenson established that a manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer where there is no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, founding modern negligence law.
Question 3: A claimant partially contributed to their own injury. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, what is the effect on the claimant's damages?
- Damages are reduced by the proportion the claimant's fault contributed to the damage (Correct answer)
- The claimant's claim is completely extinguished if they were at all at fault
- The defendant escapes all liability if the claimant was more than 50% responsible
- Damages are split equally between the parties regardless of respective degrees of fault
Correct answer: Damages are reduced by the proportion the claimant's fault contributed to the damage
The 1945 Act provides that damages shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in responsibility for the damage.
Question 4: In defamation law, which of the following is a defence of 'truth' (formerly justification) under the Defamation Act 2013?
- The defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true (Correct answer)
- The defendant must prove that the statement was published without any malicious intent
- The defendant must show the statement was a fair comment on a matter of public interest
- The defendant must establish that the claimant suffered no actual financial loss
Correct answer: The defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true
Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that the defence of truth requires the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
Question 5: In the tort of trespass to the person, which case confirmed that battery requires a direct and intentional act, not necessarily hostility?
- Wilson v Pringle [1987], though subsequently the requirement for hostility was doubted in Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] (Correct answer)
- Wilkinson v Downton [1897], which imposed liability for indirect intentional acts causing psychiatric harm
- Letang v Cooper [1965], which restricted trespass to intentional acts only
- Collins v Wilcock [1984], which confirmed that any physical contact is actionable battery
Correct answer: Wilson v Pringle [1987], though subsequently the requirement for hostility was doubted in Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990]
Wilson v Pringle suggested hostility was required for battery, but Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) cast doubt on this, clarifying that an intentional direct act making contact with another suffices without any need for hostility.
Question 6: The 'eggshell skull' rule in tort law provides that:
- A defendant must take their victim as they find them and is liable for the full extent of the claimant's injury, even if unforeseeable due to a pre-existing condition (Correct answer)
- A defendant is only liable for the foreseeable extent of the claimant's injuries regardless of any pre-existing vulnerabilities
- Liability is shared between the defendant and the claimant where the claimant had a pre-existing condition
- Damages are capped at what would have been suffered by an ordinary person without any vulnerability
Correct answer: A defendant must take their victim as they find them and is liable for the full extent of the claimant's injury, even if unforeseeable due to a pre-existing condition
The 'eggshell skull' (or 'thin skull') rule, illustrated in Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962], requires the defendant to take the claimant as they find them, bearing full liability even if the injury is more severe due to the claimant's pre-existing condition.
Question 7: Which of the following correctly states when the limitation period for a personal injury claim in negligence generally begins under the Limitation Act 1980?
- Three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action or the date of the claimant's knowledge, whichever is the later (Correct answer)
- Six years from the date the damage occurred regardless of the claimant's knowledge
- One year from the date the claimant first instructed a solicitor
- Three years from the date of the defendant's negligent act, with no extension for latent damage
Correct answer: Three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action or the date of the claimant's knowledge, whichever is the later
Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that personal injury claims must be brought within three years from either the date of accrual or the claimant's date of knowledge (s.14), whichever is later.
SQE Tort Law 2
Which test does an English court apply to determine whether a defendant's breach of duty in negligence has caused psychiatric injury to a 'secondary victim'?