Tort

• Topic 01

  Negligence: Duty of Care

  51 questions
• Topic 02

  Negligence: Breach of Duty

  45 questions
• Topic 03

  Negligence: Causation and Remoteness

  45 questions
• Topic 04

  Defences to Negligence

  45 questions
• Topic 05

  Psychiatric Harm

  45 questions
• Topic 06

  Pure Economic Loss

  45 questions
• Topic 07

  Employers' Liability

  45 questions
• Topic 08

  Vicarious Liability

  54 questions
• Topic 09

  Occupiers' Liability

  45 questions
• Topic 10

  Product Liability

  45 questions
• Topic 11

  Nuisance and the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

  63 questions
• Topic 12

  Remedies in Tort

  54 questions

A few questions from this unit, with the answer and a full explanation. The complete bank is available when you start practising.

1. A claimant earned £35,000 net per annum before her accident. Since the accident, she has been able to work part-time, earning £15,000 net per annum. She has been in this position for 18 months before trial.

   What is the correct approach to calculating her past loss of earnings?

   A) £35,000 x 1.5 years = £52,500 (her full pre-accident earnings). B) £15,000 x 1.5 years = £22,500 (her current earnings represent the loss). C) (£35,000 - £15,000) x 1.5 years = £30,000 (the difference between pre- and post-accident earnings). D) £20,000 x multiplier from Ogden Tables. E) An estimate based on the Judicial College Guidelines.

   • A
     C) (£35,000 - £15,000) x 1.5 years = £30,000 (the difference between pre- and post-accident earnings).
     Correct answer
   • B
     A) £35,000 x 1.5 years = £52,500 (her full pre-accident earnings).
   • C
     D) £20,000 x multiplier from Ogden Tables.
   • D
     E) An estimate based on the Judicial College Guidelines.
   Explanation

   Past loss of earnings represents the actual financial loss. Since the claimant is still earning £15,000, her annual loss is £35,000 - £15,000 = £20,000. Over 18 months, this is £20,000 x 1.5 = £30,000. A ignores her current earnings. B calculates what she earns, not what she lost. D uses the Ogden Tables, which are for future losses. E relates to PSLA, not lost earnings.

2. A homeowner invites a plumber to fix a leaking pipe. While working, the plumber falls through a rotten floorboard that the homeowner knew about but failed to mention. Under the OLA 1957, is the plumber a visitor or a trespasser?

   • A
     A trespasser, because tradespeople are not protected by the OLA 1957
   • B
     Neither a visitor nor a trespasser; the plumber is covered exclusively by employers' liability law
   • C
     A visitor, because the plumber entered with the express invitation of the homeowner to carry out specific work
     Correct answer
   • D
     A visitor only if the plumber was introduced by a mutual acquaintance
   Explanation

   The plumber entered with the express invitation of the homeowner to carry out specific work. This makes the plumber a visitor under section 1(2) of the OLA 1957. The homeowner, as occupier, owes the common duty of care under section 2(2). Note also section 2(3)(b): the homeowner can expect the plumber to guard against risks ordinarily incident to their calling (e.g., risks associated with plumbing), but a rotten floorboard is not such a risk.

3. A claimant grows rare tropical flowers in a greenhouse next to the defendant's welding workshop. Sparks from the workshop damage ordinary shrubs in the garden AND also destroy the rare tropical flowers in the greenhouse, which are exceptionally sensitive to airborne particles. The claimant sues in private nuisance for all losses.

   Applying Robinson v Kilvert and McKinnon Industries v Walker, which of the following most accurately states the legal position?

   A) The claimant can recover for the ordinary shrubs but NOT the rare flowers, because the flowers represent an abnormally sensitive use. B) The claimant cannot recover for either loss because the entire claim is tainted by abnormal sensitivity. C) The claimant can recover for all losses, including the rare flowers, because once a nuisance is established by reference to ordinary use (the shrubs), the full extent of damage is recoverable. D) The claimant can recover for the rare flowers only if the defendant knew they were being grown. E) The claimant can recover for all losses because sparks from a workshop are always an unreasonable interference.

   • A
     D) The claimant can recover for the rare flowers only if the defendant knew they were being grown.
   • B
     A) The claimant can recover for the ordinary shrubs but NOT the rare flowers, because the flowers represent an abnormally sensitive use.
   • C
     E) The claimant can recover for all losses because sparks from a workshop are always an unreasonable interference.
   • D
     C) The claimant can recover for all losses, including the rare flowers, because once a nuisance is established by reference to ordinary use (the shrubs), the full extent of damage is recoverable.
     Correct answer
   Explanation

   Under Robinson v Kilvert, the test for whether a nuisance exists is assessed by reference to ordinary use of the land. However, McKinnon Industries v Walker establishes that once a nuisance is proved by reference to ordinary use (here, the damage to ordinary shrubs), the claimant can recover the full extent of their damage, including damage to abnormally sensitive property (the rare flowers). A is wrong because it ignores the McKinnon principle. B is wrong because the ordinary shrubs establish the nuisance. D incorrectly introduces a knowledge requirement. E is too absolute -- whether interference is unreasonable depends on all the circumstances.