## Question 1 A marketing firm has employed a graphic designer. While working on a client project at a local coffee shop, the designer gets into an argument with another customer, resulting in physical harm to the customer. The argument began over work-related stress the designer was experiencing. The injured customer has initiated a lawsuit against the marketing firm, claiming vicarious liability for the designer's actions. Under which condition could the marketing firm potentially be held vicariously liable for the actions of the graphic designer? - A. The marketing firm is vicariously liable because the harm occurred at a public place rather than the office premises. - B. The marketing firm cannot be vicariously liable as the designer was not at the firm's premises when the incident happened. - C. The marketing firm is vicariously liable because the incident stemmed from work-related stress the designer was experiencing. - D. The marketing firm cannot be vicariously liable because the altercation was a personal action unrelated to employment duties. - E. The marketing firm is vicariously liable as the designer was working on a client project at the time of the altercation.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is D. The marketing firm cannot be vicariously liable because the physical altercation was a personal act that is unrelated to the designer's employment duties, despite the argument stemming from work-related stress. Option A is incorrect because the location where the harm occurred (public place or office) does not determine the vicarious liability unless the employee's actions were closely connected to their employment duties. Option B is incorrect because physical presence at the firm's premises is not the sole determinant of vicarious liability; what matters is the connection between the employee's conduct and their employment duties. Option C is incorrect because the fact that the incident stemmed from work-related stress does not automatically establish a direct connection necessary for vicarious liability between the employee's wrongful actions and their employment duties. Option E is incorrect because merely working on a client project at the time does not necessarily establish the necessary connection between the wrongful act and employment duties for vicarious liability.

## Question 2 A cafe, known for its scenic view and quiet ambiance, has recently experienced a drop in customers due to ongoing construction work on an adjacent property, owned by a construction company. The construction work involves heavy machinery that operates from 8 am to 4 pm daily, causing significant noise and vibration. The cafe's owner has noted a decrease in the number of visitors, citing the noise as disruptive to the expected tranquil dining experience. The owner has previously approached the construction company, requesting them to limit the noise, but there has been no change in their operations. In considering legal action against the construction company for private nuisance, which aspect would be most critical in establishing the construction company's liability? - A. The economic impact on the cafe. - B. The hours during which the construction work occurs. - C. The type of construction equipment used by the construction company. - D. The construction company's compliance with local construction regulations. - E. The disruption to the cafe's ambiance caused by the noise.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is E. The critical factor in establishing liability for private nuisance is the substantial interference with the use or enjoyment of the land, in this case, the disruption of the cafe's ambiance which is essential for its business operation. Option A is incorrect because while the economic impact is relevant to the damages claimed, it does not alone establish the liability for nuisance. Option B is incorrect because the specific hours of construction, while relevant, are not the determining factor in liability for nuisance. Option C is incorrect because the type of equipment, although it contributes to the level of noise and vibration, is not the primary basis for establishing liability. Option D is incorrect as compliance with local regulations does not preclude liability for nuisance if there is a significant disturbance.

## Question 3 A renowned bespoke furniture manufacturing company faced a lawsuit after a client was injured by a malfunctioning bespoke chair. The chair, designed to accommodate individuals with specific posture needs, malfunctioned due to an innovative but untested joint mechanism introduced by a junior carpenter. The carpenter decided to use this mechanism to expedite the manufacturing process, having observed a senior carpenter experiment with similar techniques to enhance productivity. This practice, although not formally approved, was known to and tacitly encouraged by senior management to meet tight delivery schedules. Given these circumstances, is the furniture manufacturing company vicariously liable for the client's injuries? - A. No, because the junior carpenter used an unapproved method that deviated from the company's standard manufacturing practices. - B. No, because the decision to use the untested joint mechanism was a personal initiative of the junior carpenter, not a directive from the management. - C. Yes, because the management's tacit encouragement of innovative techniques to enhance productivity made the action fall within the scope of employment. - D. Yes, because the innovative method, although untested, was aimed at meeting the company's objectives more efficiently. - E. Yes, because the carpenter's actions, intended to benefit the company by fulfilling an order promptly, directly resulted in the client's injury.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. The furniture manufacturing company is vicariously liable because the junior carpenter's decision to use an innovative but untested joint mechanism, known to and tacitly encouraged by the management, was aimed at enhancing productivity within the scope of his employment to meet the company's tight delivery schedules. Option A is incorrect because, although the method deviated from standard practices, the management's tacit encouragement makes it fall within the carpenter's employment scope. Option B is incorrect because the junior carpenter's initiative was implicitly endorsed by senior management's known stance on innovation for productivity, thus linking it to the scope of his employment. Option D is incorrect because the liability does not solely rest on the aim to meet company objectives more efficiently, but on the tacit encouragement by the management that aligns the action with employment duties. Option E is incorrect because it simplifies the situation to intent and result without considering the broader context of tacit management endorsement and the action's alignment with employment scope.

## Question 4 A local community centre rents out spaces for events and activities. During a children's birthday party, one of the children slipped and broke their arm due to a recently mopped floor in one of the corridors leading to the toilets. There were no warning signs placed to indicate the wet floor. The community centre had contracted a third-party cleaning service known for its high standards, and this service was responsible for cleaning the premises, including placing warning signs after mopping. Regarding the community centre's potential liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 for the child's injury, which of the following statements is most accurate? - A. The community centre is not liable because the cleaning was outsourced to a third-party service. - B. The community centre is liable because it is the occupier, regardless of the third-party contract. - C. The community centre is not liable because the child was not directly invited by them. - D. The community centre is liable because the injury happened during a contracted event. - E. The community centre is not liable if they can prove the third-party service usually performs diligently.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, the occupier of the premises has a duty of care toward all visitors to ensure they are reasonably safe in using the premises. This includes taking reasonable steps to warn visitors of hazards, such as a wet floor. Despite the cleaning being outsourced, the community centre remains the occupier and retains the ultimate responsibility for the safety of its premises. Option A is incorrect because the Act imposes a duty of care on the occupier, which cannot be fully outsourced. The community centre, as the occupier, is still responsible for ensuring the safe condition of the premises for visitors. Option C is incorrect because the Act protects all lawful visitors, including those invited by others renting the space, making the community centre liable for their safety. Option D is incorrect because liability under the Act is not conditional upon the nature of the visit but upon the occupier's failure to ensure safety. Option E is incorrect because, although due diligence in selecting the third-party service could be a factor in defence, it does not absolve the community centre of liability if they failed to ensure that necessary safety measures, like warning signs, were in place.

## Question 5 During an illicit drag racing event, not sanctioned or approved by any legal authority and taking place on a public road, the claimant and the defendant were competitors. In the heat of the race, the defendant's car collided with the claimant's, causing significant damage to the claimant's vehicle and injuring the claimant. Both were aware of the illegal nature of the event and the risks involved in participating. The claimant decides to pursue a negligence claim against the defendant for the injuries and the damage to the car. Considering the illegal context of the event, which defence is the defendant most likely to assert successfully against the claimant's negligence claim? - A. Invoke volenti non fit injuria, emphasizing the claimant's voluntary participation in the illegal race. - B. Assert contributory negligence, highlighting the claimant's reckless driving during the race. - C. Claim necessity, arguing that participating in the race was to avoid greater harm. - D. Rely on the defence of illegality, underscoring the claimant's involvement in the illicit activity. - E. Argue that the claimant assumed the risks inherent in participating in illegal racing.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is D. In light of the illegal nature of the activity both parties were involved in, the defence of illegality can serve to bar the claimant's negligence claim against the defendant. The fact that both parties were engaged in an unauthorized and illegal street racing event makes this defence particularly applicable. Option A is incorrect because volenti non fit injuria requires voluntary acceptance of a known risk; however, this principle does not apply to this scenario because the activity is illegal. Option B is incorrect as contributory negligence might reduce the damages awarded but not completely negate the claim, especially when the claim itself arises from an illegal activity. Option C is incorrect because the defence of necessity is applicable only when the unlawful act was performed to avert a greater, immediate harm, which is not the case here. Option E is incorrect because assuming the risks associated with an illegal activity does not absolve the defendant of liability in the context of a negligence claim arising from such activity.

## Question 6 A local café has expanded its operations to include live music events every weekend. While the café has operated in its current location for over 15 years without incident, the introduction of live music has sparked complaints from nearby residents about noise. They claim that the noise levels during these events constitute a private nuisance. The café owner argues that the café's long-standing presence and contribution to the community's cultural life should provide a basis for defence against these complaints. As a trainee solicitor, advise the café owner on the potential validity of their defence against the private nuisance claims. - A. The café owner has a valid defence because the café contributes significantly to the community's cultural life and local economy. - B. The café owner can claim a defence of prescription if they can prove the live music events have occurred without complaint for over 20 years. - C. The café owner's defence is strengthened if noise levels during events fall within local noise regulation thresholds. - D. The café owner has a defence if they hold a licence that specifically authorizes live music events, regardless of noise complaints. - E. The café owner has no defences available and must cease all live music events to avoid legal liability for nuisance claims.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Demonstrating that noise levels during live music events fall within local noise regulation thresholds can form a basis for defence against private nuisance claims, as it provides evidence that the café is operating within legally acceptable noise limits. Option A is incorrect because the contribution of the café to the community's cultural life does not legally justify causing a nuisance. Option B is incorrect because the defence of prescription requires uninterrupted activity causing the nuisance for over 20 years. The complaints only started after the introduction of live music events, which have not been specified to have lasted for the necessary duration. Option D is incorrect because having a licence for live music events does not automatically negate the potential for a nuisance to be caused or defend against claims of private nuisance. Option E is incorrect as there are defences available against claims of private nuisance, such as demonstrating compliance with local noise regulations, which could mitigate or negate liability.

## Question 7 During a company-organized team building event at an external venue, an employee suffered an allergic reaction due to the food provided. The catering was handled by an independent contractor selected by the employer, who did not inquire about or relay any dietary restrictions to the caterer. On what basis can the employee most effectively pursue a claim for negligence against their employer? - A. The employee's claim should solely target the independent caterer since they prepared the food causing the reaction. - B. The employer has a non-delegable duty to ensure employee safety and well-being during work-related events. - C. The responsibility to disclose dietary restrictions rested solely on the employee attending the work event. - D. Liability applies to the employer only if they were explicitly warned about the employee's dietary restrictions. - E. The venue, rather than the employer or caterer, is responsible for food safety during events held on premises.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. Employers owe a non-delegable duty towards their employees' safety and well-being at work-related events, which includes ensuring that catering services are aware of and cater to employees' dietary needs. Option A is incorrect because although the caterer directly prepared the food, the employer's responsibility to ensure employee safety during company events cannot be transferred. Option C is incorrect as while employees may share in the responsibility to communicate dietary restrictions, the ultimate duty to ensure this information is managed and acted upon in the context of a work event lies with the employer. Option D is incorrect because the employer's liability is not contingent upon being explicitly warned; they have a proactive duty to inquire about and manage such risks. Option E is incorrect because, despite the venue hosting the event, the responsibility for choosing and instructing the caterer, and consequently the duty to ensure food safety for employees, remains with the employer.

## Question 8 During a severe winter storm, a homeowner hires a snow removal company to remove snow and ice from their driveway. The company uses a new chemical de-icer that is purported to be effective and environmentally friendly. However, the homeowner slips and falls on an icy patch the following morning, resulting in a fractured wrist. It is discovered that the de-icer was improperly applied and is known to be less effective in the temperatures experienced overnight. What must the homeowner demonstrate to successfully claim negligence against the snow removal company? - A. The snow removal company offered a lower price than other snow removal services. - B. The de-icer used was marketed as environmentally friendly. - C. The improper application of the de-icer led to foreseeable harm. - D. The homeowner had never fallen in their driveway prior to this incident. - E. The snow removal company had a high customer satisfaction rating.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. The homeowner must prove that the improper application of the de-icer led to foreseeable harm, illustrating a breach in the duty of care owed by the snow removal company, directly causing the icy patch that resulted in the injury. Option A is incorrect because the pricing strategy of the snow removal company is irrelevant to establishing negligence in this scenario. Option B is incorrect because the marketing claims about the de-icer's environmental benefits do not impact the duty of care related to its application and effectiveness. Option D is incorrect because the homeowner's previous experiences of not falling do not contribute to proving that the snow removal company breached their duty of care. Option E is incorrect because a high customer satisfaction rating does not negate the possibility of negligence in a specific instance.

## Question 9 A freelance journalist is killed after a stage light, negligently rigged by a technician, falls during an award ceremony. The journalist was the sole breadwinner for a family comprising a spouse and two minor children. The family now faces significant financial hardship due to the loss of the journalist's income. Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, who is entitled to claim damages for the loss of financial dependency? - A. The journalist's spouse only. - B. The journalist's minor children only. - C. Both the journalist's spouse and minor children. - D. The technician responsible for rigging the light. - E. No claim can be made for loss of financial dependency.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, dependants of a deceased person who was killed as a result of another's negligence have a statutory right to claim damages for loss of dependency. Section 1(3) of the Act defines "dependants" to include the spouse or civil partner and any children of the deceased. Both the journalist's spouse and minor children qualify as dependants and can claim for the financial support they have lost as a result of the journalist's death. The damages are calculated based on the value of the financial and other benefits the dependants would have received but for the death. Option A is incorrect because the claim for loss of dependency is not limited to the spouse. The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 extends the right to claim to all dependants, which includes the minor children. Option B is incorrect because, similar to the minor children, the spouse is also a dependant under the Act and entitled to claim for loss of dependency. Option D is incorrect because the technician, being the tortfeasor at fault, cannot claim for any loss associated with the negligence they caused. Option E is incorrect because the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 specifically provides dependants with the right to claim damages for loss of dependency when the deceased was killed by another's wrongful act.

## Question 10 An established author has recently launched a self-help book aimed at entrepreneurs, based on her successful career in the tech industry. In the book, she provides specific advice on investment strategies, emphasizing a certain tech start-up as a guaranteed success based on her research. Influenced by this, a group of readers collectively invest a significant portion of their funds into the start-up. A few months later, it emerges that the start-up's technology was fundamentally flawed, leading to its bankruptcy and a complete loss of the investment. Is the author liable for the readers' financial losses under the tort of negligent misstatement? - A. The author is not liable as the advice was generic and intended for a broad audience of general readers. - B. The author is not liable as the readers chose to invest independently without obtaining direct professional consultation. - C. The author is liable as the readers reasonably relied on her expertise in making their investment decision. - D. The author is liable if there was a special relationship and she was aware readers would act on her advice. - E. The author is liable as there was a pre-existing contractual relationship with the readers through the book sale.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is D. According to the principles established in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, liability for negligent misstatement requires a 'special relationship' between the parties, which entails an assumption of responsibility by the person giving the advice and reliance upon that advice by the person receiving it. In this scenario, by specifically recommending a start-up as a guaranteed success, the author could be seen as assuming responsibility, especially if aware that readers would likely act on the advice in a significant way. Option A is incorrect because the specificity of the advice regarding the start-up moves it beyond generic guidance to something that could be reasonably acted upon. Option B is incorrect because, despite the absence of direct consultation, the specific nature of the advice and the author's position of influence create a plausible expectation of reliance. Option C is incorrect because, although the readers' reliance might seem reasonable, the critical factor under negligent misstatement is not just the reasonableness of the reliance but also the existence of a relationship where the adviser understands their advice will be acted upon. Option E is incorrect because a contractual relationship is not a prerequisite for a finding of liability under the tort of negligent misstatement; what matters is the relationship of reliance and assumed responsibility.

SQE1 FLK1 Tort Sample Questions July 2024