SQE1 - Solicitors Qualifying Examination Part 1 The Law of Tort Questions and Answers

Question 1

A courier, employed by a delivery company, gets into an argument with a customer on their doorstep about a delivery instruction.
The argument escalates, and the courier, feeling insulted, follows the customer into their garden and assaults them.
The customer sues the delivery company on the basis of vicarious liability.
Based on the precedent in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, is the company likely to be held vicariously liable?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because the assault arose from an interaction that was directly within the courier's field of activities, which is interacting with customers.

Answer

No, because the assault was an intentional criminal act, not a negligent one.

Answer

No, because the courier was acting outside the scope of his duties, which were limited to delivering parcels at the door.

Answer

Yes, but only if the company had failed to carry out adequate background checks on the courier before employing him.

Question 2

Which of the following statements most accurately compares the duty of care owed by an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (to lawful visitors) and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (to trespassers)?

Accepted Answer

The 1957 Act allows for claims for property damage, while the 1984 Act restricts claims to death and personal injury only.

Answer

The 1957 Act imposes a duty to ensure visitors are completely safe, whereas the 1984 Act imposes a duty to warn of obvious dangers.

Answer

Both Acts impose the same 'common duty of care', but the 1984 Act allows for this duty to be more easily discharged through warnings.

Answer

A duty under the 1957 Act is owed automatically to all lawful visitors, whereas a duty under the 1984 Act is only owed for dangers the occupier created deliberately to harm trespassers.

Question 3

A restaurant diner posts a negative online review stating, 'In my opinion, the chef at this restaurant has no talent. The steak I ate last night was tough and flavourless, which an honest person would say is evidence of this.' The restaurant owner sues the diner for defamation. Which defence under the Defamation Act 2013 is the diner most likely to rely on?

Accepted Answer

Honest Opinion

Answer

Truth

Answer

Public Interest

Answer

Absolute Privilege

Question 4

In a claim for private nuisance, a court will assess whether the defendant's use of their land constitutes an 'unreasonable interference' with the claimant's enjoyment of their land. Which of the following factors is the court LEAST likely to consider relevant in this assessment?

Accepted Answer

The financial resources of the defendant.

Answer

The duration and frequency of the interference.

Answer

The character of the neighbourhood or 'locality'.

Answer

Whether the defendant acted with malice.

Question 5

In a personal injury claim, damages are often categorised as either general or special. Which of the following would be classified as special damages?

Accepted Answer

The cost of prescription medication and physiotherapy incurred up to the date of the trial.

Answer

Compensation for the physical pain and suffering caused by the injury.

Answer

Compensation for the loss of enjoyment of a hobby, such as playing a sport.

Answer

Damages for the psychological impact, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

Question 6

A premature baby suffers blindness. A junior doctor's negligence meant the baby received excessive oxygen at one point, which is a known potential cause of the condition. However, there were four other non-negligent potential causes related to the premature birth. The claimant cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that the negligent oxygen administration was the specific cause. What is the likely outcome regarding causation, based on the principle in *Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority*?

Accepted Answer

The claimant will fail because they cannot prove, on the balance of probabilities, that 'but for' the negligence, the harm would not have occurred.

Answer

The claimant will succeed because the doctor's negligence materially increased the risk of the harm occurring.

Answer

The burden of proof will reverse, requiring the hospital to prove their negligence did not cause the blindness.

Answer

The court will apportion liability between the negligent cause and the non-negligent causes.