Questions

Q1: What does a tort involve?

1. Involves a civil wrong
2. Involves a criminal wrong
3. Involves an quasi criminal wrong
4. Involves an inchoate crime

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 3 and 4
D. 1,2,3 and 4

Q2: In order for an action in negligence to succeed, the claimant must prove which of the
following must be proven:
1. A duty of care was owed to him by the defendant
2. The defendant breached that duty
3. As a consequence of that breach, damage or loss has been suffered.
4. Loss was foreseeable

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 3 and 4
D. 1,2,3 and 4

Q3: Long ago, the belief was that to allow an action to be taken where there was no contractual
relationship would undermine the principles of contract law. The doctrine of privity states that
only parties to a contract can sue or be sued. Which case changed this principle and, as a result,
manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product.
A. Donoghue v Stevenson
B. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
C. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
D. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound)

Q4: Which case was the first to popularize the neighborhood principle?
A. Donoghue v Stevenson
B. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
C. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
D. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound)

Q5: Negligence is the omission to do something that a reasonable man guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In which case was this stated in?
A. Donoghue v Stevenson
B. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
C. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
D. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound)

Q6: Who bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was
negligent?
A. The defendant
B. The claimant
C. The judge
D. The court interpreter

Q7: There are situations whereby a claimant may be able to rely on a certain maxim which
translates to mean that the thing speaks for itself. By this rule of evidence, the mere fact of an
accident occurring raises the inference of the defendants negligence, so that a prima facie case
exists. What maxim is this?
A. Res ipsa loquitur
B. Animus nocendi
C. Casus belli
D. Contra proferentem

Q8: The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred not for the negligence of the
defendant. Which case illustrates this?
A. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
B. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound)
C. Hughes v Lord Advocate
D. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

Q9: The damage caused to the claimant must be of a type that is must have reasonably been
foreseen. What legal principle does this statement relate to?
A. Remoteness principle
B. Reasonably foreseeable principle
C. Reasonable man principle
D. Neighborhood principle

Q10: Which are the landmark cases that establish that fact that damage caused to the claimant
must be of a type that is reasonably foreseeable?
1. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
2. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound)
3. Hughes v Lord Advocate
4. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 3 and 4
D. 1,2,3 and 4

Q11: There are two main defenses to a charge of negligence. What are they?
1. Contributory negligence
2. Volenti non fit injuria
3. Self Defense
4. Mistake

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 3 and 4
D. 1,2,3 and 4

Q12: If the claimant is partly responsible for his own injuries, what defense can the defendant
can plead?
A. Contributory negligence
B. Volenti non fit injuria
C. Self Defense
D. Mistake

Q13: What are the main cases on contributory negligence?

1. Jones v Livox Quarries
2. Sayers v Harlow
3. Hughes v Lord Advocate
4. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 3 and 4
D. 1,2,3 and 4

Q14: This defense applies where the claimant has freely consented to the negligent act. It
amounts to an agreement by the claimant to exempt the defendant from a duty of care that he
would otherwise owe. What defense is it?
A. Contributory negligence
B. Volenti non fit injuria
C. Duress
D. Mistake

Q15: Which case established that consent acts as a complete defense to a negligent act?
A. Jones v Livox Quarries
B. ICI v Shatwell
C. Sayers v Harlow
D. Hughes v Lord Advocate

Q16: Which is the landmark case which marked a new approach to the law of negligent
misstatement, whereby the law would impose a duty of case in the making of statements?
A. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
B. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others
C. Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel Bank
D. James McNaughton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson

Q17: Which of these cases does not relate to the law of negligent misstatement causing economic
loss?
A. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
B. Hughes v Lord Advocate
C. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others
D. Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel Bank

Q18: For an action in negligent misstatement to succeed, what are the requirements that must be
satisfied?
1. Special relationship exists between the parties
2. Auditor has knowledge that the shareholder will rely on the report
3. Statement must be understood by a reasonable man
4. Statement must be made in writing

A. 1 and 2
B. 2 and 3
C. 3 and 4
D. 1,2,3 and 4

Q19: In one landmark case on negligent misstatement, the court set out three criteria which had
to be fulfilled in order to give rise to a duty of care and these were:

The standard test of foreseeability applied

The concept of proximity limits the duty to circumstances where the statement would be
communicated to the claimant either as an individual or a member of an identifiable
group in respect of transactions of a particular kind and that the claimant would rely on
the statement.

Whether it is just and equitable that a duty of care should be imposed, so that imposing it
would not be contrary to public policy.

Which landmark case was this?

A. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others
B. Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel Bank
C. James McNaughton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson
D. Jones v Livox Quarries

Q20: Which of the following are not cases on the law relating to negligent misstatement?
E. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others
F. Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel Bank
G. James McNaughton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson
H. Jones v Livox Quarries

Answers

Q1: A tort involves a civil wrong

Q2: In order for an action in negligence to succeed, the claimant must prove that a duty of care
was owed to him by the defendant, the defendant breached that duty, as a consequence of that
breach, damage or loss has been suffered and the loss was foreseeable

Q3: The case of Donoghue v Stevenson changed the principle that no action can be taken where
there was no contractual relationship. The case establishes that manufacturers of goods owe a
duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product.

Q4: The case of Donoghue v Stevenson was the first case to popularize the neighborhood
principle

Q5: In the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, it was stated that negligence is the
omission to do something that a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent
and reasonable man would not do.

Q6: The claimant bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant
was negligent

Q7: There are situations whereby a claimant may be able to rely on the maxim of Res ipsa
loquitur, which translates to mean that the thing speaks for itself.

Q8: The case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital illustrates that a claimant must prove
that harm would not have occurred not for the negligence of the defendant.

Q9: The reasonably foreseeable principle establishes that damage caused to the claimant must be
of a type that is must have reasonably been foreseen.

Q10: The landmark cases of Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The
Wagon Mound) and Hughes v Lord Advocate establish that fact that damage caused to the
claimant must be of a type that is reasonably foreseeable.

Q11: The main defenses to a charge of negligence include contributory negligence and volenti
non fit injuria.

Q12: If the claimant is partly responsible for his own injuries, he can plead the defense of
contributory negligence.

Q13: The main cases on contributory negligence are the cases of Jones v Livox Quarries and
Sayers v Harlow

Q14: This defense of volenti non fit injuria applies where the claimant has freely consented to
the negligent act.

Q15: The case of ICI v Shatwell establishes that consent acts as a complete defense to a
negligent act

Q16: The landmark case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd marked a new
approach to the law of negligent misstatement, whereby the law would impose a duty of case in
the making of statements

Q17: The case of Hughes v Lord Advocate does not relate to the law of negligent misstatement
causing economic loss and it is a case that relates to the law of remoteness.

Q18: For an action in negligent misstatement to succeed, there must be a special relationship that
exists between the parties and the auditor has knowledge that the shareholder will rely on the
report.

Q19: The landmark case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others is where the court set
out these three criteria to be fulfilled in order to give rise to a duty of care.

Q20: The case of Jones v Livox Quarries is not a case on the law relating to negligent
misstatement.