SQE Tort Law

Question 1

In negligence, which of the following correctly states the three-part test established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]?

Accepted Answer

Foreseeability of damage, proximity between the parties, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The damage would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach of duty

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co v English [1938]

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The common duty of care: to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to keep visitors safe

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

The claimant must have a proprietary or exclusive possessory interest in the affected land

Answer

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.

SQE - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Practice Test

SQE - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Practice Test

SQE Tort Law