SQE 1 – (TORT LAW) EXAM
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT REVIEWED
ANSWERS
When is a person considered to be 'on a frolic of their
own?
Many cases involve driving as part of their employment
where the employee deviates from the route authorised by
their employer.
The courts will consider the extent to which the route has
been deviated and the purpose of departure from the
route. If they were still going about employer's business
then would not be on a frolic.
Define negligence
Breach by the Defendant of a legal duty of care owed to
the claimant that results in harm undesired by the
Defendant to the Claimant
Give some examples of established duties of care
Doctor and patient
Teacher and pupil
Employer and employee
Defendant and rescuer
What is the test of proximity from Donoughue v
Stevenson
,'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure
your neighbour'
What are the three elements of the Caparo test?
1. Reasonable foresight of harm to C
2. Sufficient proximity of relationship between C and D
3. Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty on D
When might a defendant be liable for an omission?
When there is a special relationship such as:
They have assumed a duty
They have positive control over C
They have created a dangerous situation
What is the two stage test for a breach of duty
1. How should the defendant have acted - a question of
law
2. Did they breach this standard? a question of fact.
What standard of care should the general defendant
reach?
That of the reasonable person 'the man on the Clapham
Omnibus'.
This is a subjective test.
What standard are learner drivers required to meet?
That of the reasonably competent driver (even on their first
lesson)
,If the defendant is skilled what standard of care
should they meet?
That of the reasonably skilled person in their profession.
Professional opinion can help.
A handyman should be considered against the reasonably
skilled handyman.
What standard of care are children expected to meet?
Care as can be reasonably expected from a child of their
age.
The reasonable person would take out a 'risk
assessment' before undertaking a risky activity. What
should they consider.
Magnitude of the risk
Seriousness of the potential injury
Cost of taking precautions
Defendant's purpose
Common Practice
Emergencies
What is the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur
In the absence of direct evidence, the event causation can
be inferred from the facts if the injury is one that would not
normally happen without negligence
, Three things must be proven
§ The thing caused the damage must be under control of
the defendant
§ Accident must be one which wouldn't normally happen
without negligence
§ Cause of accident is unknown to claimant
What is the test for factual causation?
The "but for test" But for the D's actions would the V have
suffered?
Standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities - where
only 25% chance cannot be held liable.
Explain some of the rules that apply where there is
more than one cause of damage?
Boddington - material contribution
- claimant can show legal causation if the defendant's
negligence 'materially contributed' to the claimant's harm.
Need not be the only cause.
Material increase - specific to cases of illnesses caused by
working conditions.
Performance Cars - damage occurred twice in same
place. Can't claim twice.
When is an injury divisible?
When the damage has been built up over a period of time
and can clearly be divided between the liable parties. Not
relevant for most injuries.
What happens when an injury is indivisible?
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT REVIEWED
ANSWERS
When is a person considered to be 'on a frolic of their
own?
Many cases involve driving as part of their employment
where the employee deviates from the route authorised by
their employer.
The courts will consider the extent to which the route has
been deviated and the purpose of departure from the
route. If they were still going about employer's business
then would not be on a frolic.
Define negligence
Breach by the Defendant of a legal duty of care owed to
the claimant that results in harm undesired by the
Defendant to the Claimant
Give some examples of established duties of care
Doctor and patient
Teacher and pupil
Employer and employee
Defendant and rescuer
What is the test of proximity from Donoughue v
Stevenson
,'you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure
your neighbour'
What are the three elements of the Caparo test?
1. Reasonable foresight of harm to C
2. Sufficient proximity of relationship between C and D
3. Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty on D
When might a defendant be liable for an omission?
When there is a special relationship such as:
They have assumed a duty
They have positive control over C
They have created a dangerous situation
What is the two stage test for a breach of duty
1. How should the defendant have acted - a question of
law
2. Did they breach this standard? a question of fact.
What standard of care should the general defendant
reach?
That of the reasonable person 'the man on the Clapham
Omnibus'.
This is a subjective test.
What standard are learner drivers required to meet?
That of the reasonably competent driver (even on their first
lesson)
,If the defendant is skilled what standard of care
should they meet?
That of the reasonably skilled person in their profession.
Professional opinion can help.
A handyman should be considered against the reasonably
skilled handyman.
What standard of care are children expected to meet?
Care as can be reasonably expected from a child of their
age.
The reasonable person would take out a 'risk
assessment' before undertaking a risky activity. What
should they consider.
Magnitude of the risk
Seriousness of the potential injury
Cost of taking precautions
Defendant's purpose
Common Practice
Emergencies
What is the maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur
In the absence of direct evidence, the event causation can
be inferred from the facts if the injury is one that would not
normally happen without negligence
, Three things must be proven
§ The thing caused the damage must be under control of
the defendant
§ Accident must be one which wouldn't normally happen
without negligence
§ Cause of accident is unknown to claimant
What is the test for factual causation?
The "but for test" But for the D's actions would the V have
suffered?
Standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities - where
only 25% chance cannot be held liable.
Explain some of the rules that apply where there is
more than one cause of damage?
Boddington - material contribution
- claimant can show legal causation if the defendant's
negligence 'materially contributed' to the claimant's harm.
Need not be the only cause.
Material increase - specific to cases of illnesses caused by
working conditions.
Performance Cars - damage occurred twice in same
place. Can't claim twice.
When is an injury divisible?
When the damage has been built up over a period of time
and can clearly be divided between the liable parties. Not
relevant for most injuries.
What happens when an injury is indivisible?
