Law of Tort overview quiz - WJEC A-Level Law quiz

Duty of care, breach of duty, and damage caused and not too remote

Offer, acceptance and consideration between the two parties

Actus reus, mens rea and the absence of any valid defence

Accumulation, escape and a non-natural use of the defendant's land

Rylands v Fletcher, on the escape of a dangerous thing

Donoghue v Stevenson, the decomposed snail in the ginger beer

Wheat v Lacon, on who counts as an occupier of premises

Froom v Butcher, on the failure to wear a seatbelt

The standard of the most cautious person who could be imagined

Whatever standard the individual defendant personally thought was safe

The reasonable person performing that particular activity

The standard agreed in advance by the two parties to the dispute

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which covers trespassers

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 on goods and services

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the common duty of care

Be prepared for children to be less careful and guard against allurements

Treat children in exactly the same way as ordinary adult visitors

Exclude all children from the premises at all times without exception

Owe children no duty of care of any kind while they are present

Membership of the local residents' association in the area

A proprietary interest in the land that is affected

A written contract with the defendant about the land

Nothing at all, since anyone affected may bring a claim

A contract between the claimant and the defendant landowner

Proof that the defendant intended to cause the escape

The presence of a lawful visitor on the defendant's premises

A non-natural use of the land and an escape of a dangerous thing

A relationship of employment, or one akin to employment

That the claimant has suffered purely financial loss

That the employee admits the tort in open court first

That an independent contractor carried out the work

Whether the claimant had a proprietary interest in the land

Whether the damage was a reasonably foreseeable type of harm

Whether a tort was committed in the course of employment

Whether the occupier had given an adequate warning of danger

It defeats the claim entirely, leaving the claimant nothing

It has no effect at all on the amount of damages awarded

It transfers liability completely to a third-party defendant

It is a partial defence reducing damages for the claimant's own fault

That the claimant knew the precise risk and freely agreed to run it

That the claimant merely had some general awareness a risk existed

That the claimant was a paid employee of the defendant company

That the claimant failed to wear appropriate protective clothing

To punish the defendant for the seriousness of the wrong done

To restore the claimant to their pre-tort position, so far as money can

To deter other people in the future from committing similar torts

To strip the defendant of any profit they made from the tort

Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity after the injury

Damages awarded to punish especially outrageous conduct

Quantifiable losses up to trial, such as lost earnings and expenses

Future loss of earnings that the court must estimate

An injunction ordering the defendant to stop the interference

An order for specific performance of a contract term

A declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act

A custodial sentence imposed on the defendant in person