The English Law of Tort Trivia Quiz

Answer: breach of contract

"Contract" is a separate area of English civil law. However, it often overlaps in practice and may be an alternative way of proceeding when a tort is also being alleged against a defendant. Defamation is a "tort" and there is a separate quiz on that subject in the "World" quiz section (under "Law").

Answer: The Defendant must accept the Plaintiff as he/she finds him/her and with all their frailties.

This principle would apply for example where damages are given for nervous shock (see Brice v Brown a High Court case in 1984). An identifiable psychiatric or physical illness is basically what is being looked for by the court in this example and the defendant has to accept the nervous state of the plaintiff "as it was" prior to the alleged wrong doing.

Answer: noise from one property affecting an elderly neighbour

Public nuisance must affect an identiable "class" of people. In Wandsworth Borough Council v Rail Track PLC in the Court of Appeal in 2001 droppings from pigeons from a railway bridge onto passers by below was held to be hazardous and a public nuisance.

The Court must decide as a decision of fact if the group of persons affected is a large enough group to constitute public nuisance. Public nuisance is also a criminal offence.

Answer: Yes

The Protection From Harassment Act, 1997 is the governing statute and the resulting anxiety and financial loss from harassment may be claimed in damages, as well as the remedy of an injunction. This is an interesting law where the rights of one individual must be balanced against those of others, including the media.

It will be interesting to see what case law now follows as the judges try and interpret what Parliament intended in terms of public policy and the scope of this Act.

Answer: Yes

There is much case law that you can not sue the police for negligence as regards the performance of their duties (see Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire in the House of Lords in 1988). However, the Human Rights Act, 1998 says that the rights of the police must be weighed against those of the appellant. Prior to this Act in Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police the Court of Appeal held (in 1996) that there is a public interest in protecting people who inform,and this must be balanced against the public interest needed to allow the police to operate freely. Thus the action of the plaintiff may in such cases succeed against the police.

Answer: Occupiers' Liability Act, 1984

The 1957 Act above basically covers lawful visitors to your property.
The 1984 Act above basically covers other persons including trespassers. In fact a burglar is even granted forms of protection (see Revill v Newbery-Court of Appeal,1996) by the law.

Answer: Court actions by a person based on their own illegal or immoral act(s) will probably fail

The use of this defence depends on the seriousness of the plaintiff's wrongdoing and the moral judgement of the Court. In Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority (CA, 1998) a person convicted of manslaughter (due to diminished responsibilty) sued the Health Authority for lack of proper care since leaving secure care as an in-patient and resulting in him doing the killing.

It was held that public policy meant that he could not blame the Health Authority for his own wrong doing while legally sane.

Answer: True

This Act covers the supply of goods by a business person. Also, the Act does not remove any legal actions available in the common law.

Answer: no

The parent or guardian ad litem (the responsible person at the time) is also involved, but the child is liable in the same manner as an adult. Also, the guardian or parent may be liable separately for not having sufficient and proper supervision and control of the child at the time.(see Carmarthenshire C.C. v Lewis in the House of Lords in 1955).

Answer: There is no final test or rule and all the factors of the particular case must be considered.

The courts have not really resolved this one and there is no single test. Every case must be considered on its own merits and with all the individual facts relating to it having to be weighed up. Please note that an employer can be held liable on occasions for the acts of his/her independent contractors, as well as for the acts of employees working for this employer.