SQE Tort Law 2

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'?

Accepted Answer

The claimant must satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms: proximity in time/space, perception through unaided senses, and close tie of love and affection

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the product reaches them without a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Damages are reduced by the proportion the claimant's fault contributed to the damage

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Wilson v Pringle [1987], though subsequently the requirement for hostility was doubted in Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990]

Answer

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.

SQE - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Practice Test

SQE - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Practice Test

SQE Tort Law 2