ACCA LW · Chapter 5
The law of torts and professional negligence MCQs with Answers
11 multiple-choice questions on The law of torts and professional negligence for ACCA LW Corporate and Business Law. Try each one before revealing the answer and explanation.
Practise this chapter interactivelyQuestion 1
Which case established the 'neighbour principle' as the foundation of the modern law of negligence?
- A) Donoghue v Stevenson
- B) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
- C) Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
- D) Hadley v Baxendale
Show answer & explanation
Answer: A) Donoghue v Stevenson
In Donoghue v Stevenson Lord Atkin stated that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, meaning persons so closely and directly affected that you ought to have them in contemplation. The other cases concern contractual offers, corporate personality and remoteness of contractual damage.
Question 2
In novel situations, the courts have used the three-stage test from Caparo Industries v Dickman to determine whether a duty of care exists. Which of the following is NOT one of the three stages?
- A) The harm was reasonably foreseeable
- B) The defendant intended to cause the claimant harm
- C) There was a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties
- D) It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
Show answer & explanation
Answer: B) The defendant intended to cause the claimant harm
The Caparo factors are whether damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was sufficient proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Negligence does not require any intention to cause harm; it is based on a failure to take reasonable care. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police the Supreme Court stressed that Caparo did not lay down a single test for every case: where a duty is already established by precedent the court simply applies it, and in genuinely novel situations it develops the law incrementally by analogy with existing cases, using these factors as part of that reasoning.
Question 3
A cricket ball was hit out of a ground and injured a passer-by. Balls had left the ground only a handful of times in many years. In Bolton v Stone, why was the cricket club held not to be in breach of duty?
- A) The club owed no duty of care to people outside the ground
- B) The claimant consented to the risk by walking near a cricket ground
- C) The risk of injury was so small that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions
- D) The injury was too remote because a cricket ball is not dangerous
Show answer & explanation
Answer: C) The risk of injury was so small that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions
Breach is assessed by comparing the defendant's conduct with that of a reasonable person, considering the probability of harm, its seriousness, the cost of precautions and the social value of the activity. In Bolton v Stone the likelihood of injury was very small, so the club was not negligent in failing to take further steps. The case did not turn on the absence of a duty, consent or remoteness.
Question 4
An employer knew that one of its employees was blind in one eye but did not provide him with safety goggles. He was struck in his good eye and became totally blind. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council, which factor was decisive in finding the employer in breach?
- A) The seriousness of the potential harm to that particular employee
- B) The high cost of providing goggles
- C) The social utility of the employer's activity
- D) The employee's failure to request goggles
Show answer & explanation
Answer: A) The seriousness of the potential harm to that particular employee
Paris v Stepney shows that the more serious the consequences of an injury, the greater the precautions a reasonable person would take. Because the claimant risked total blindness, the employer should have provided goggles even if it would not have needed to do so for other workers. Cost of precautions is a separate factor illustrated by Latimer v AEC.
Question 5
A patient attended hospital with severe vomiting and was sent home without examination by the doctor on duty. He died of arsenic poisoning that could not have been treated in time even if he had been examined. In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, why did the claim fail?
- A) The hospital owed no duty of care to a patient who had not been admitted
- B) The doctor's failure to examine was not a breach of duty
- C) The type of harm was not reasonably foreseeable
- D) The breach of duty was not the factual cause of the death under the 'but for' test
Show answer & explanation
Answer: D) The breach of duty was not the factual cause of the death under the 'but for' test
Although the doctor breached his duty by failing to examine the patient, the patient would have died anyway. The 'but for' test asks whether the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's breach; here it would have, so causation was not established. The case is a standard illustration of factual causation.
Question 6
Oil was negligently spilled into a harbour and later caught fire, damaging the claimant's wharf. Expert evidence showed that fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable, although fouling of the wharf by oil was. In The Wagon Mound (No 1), what was the result?
- A) The defendant was liable for all direct consequences of its negligence, including the fire
- B) The defendant was liable because the eggshell skull rule applies to property
- C) The defendant was not liable for the fire damage because that type of damage was not reasonably foreseeable
- D) The defendant was not liable for anything because it owed no duty to the wharf owners
Show answer & explanation
Answer: C) The defendant was not liable for the fire damage because that type of damage was not reasonably foreseeable
The Wagon Mound (No 1) rejected the direct consequences test from Re Polemis and held that a defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. Since fire damage was not foreseeable, it was too remote. Provided the type of harm is foreseeable, the precise manner or extent need not be (Hughes v Lord Advocate; Smith v Leech Brain).
Question 7
A claimant suffers a minor burn caused by the defendant's negligence. Because of a pre-existing condition, the burn triggers cancer and the claimant dies. Following Smith v Leech Brain & Co, what is the defendant's liability?
- A) The defendant is liable for the full consequences, because the defendant must take the victim as they find them
- B) The defendant is liable only for the minor burn, because the cancer was not foreseeable
- C) The defendant is not liable at all, because the pre-existing condition broke the chain of causation
- D) The defendant is liable only if they knew about the pre-existing condition
Show answer & explanation
Answer: A) The defendant is liable for the full consequences, because the defendant must take the victim as they find them
Under the 'eggshell skull' rule, once some injury of a foreseeable type is caused, the defendant is liable for its full extent even if it is unusually severe because of the claimant's particular vulnerability. In Smith v Leech Brain a burn from molten metal activated a pre-malignant condition and the employer was liable for the death. The defendant's knowledge of the condition is irrelevant.
Question 8
A claimant was injured partly through the defendant's negligence and partly through failing to wear a seat belt. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, what is the effect of the claimant's fault?
- A) The damages are reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share of responsibility
- B) The claim fails completely
- C) The defendant's liability is unaffected
- D) The claimant must pay damages to the defendant
Show answer & explanation
Answer: A) The damages are reduced to the extent the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share of responsibility
Contributory negligence is a partial defence. Under the 1945 Act damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's share of responsibility for the damage. It no longer operates as a complete defence. A complete defence would be volenti non fit injuria, where the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk.
Question 9
In Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners, the House of Lords recognised that a duty of care could arise in respect of negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss. Why did the claimant's action nevertheless fail?
- A) Pure economic loss is never recoverable in negligence
- B) The claimant had not paid the bank for the reference, so no duty could arise in any circumstances
- C) The reference was accurate, so there was no breach
- D) The bank had given its reference 'without responsibility', which effectively disclaimed liability
Show answer & explanation
Answer: D) The bank had given its reference 'without responsibility', which effectively disclaimed liability
Hedley Byrne established that a duty can arise where there is a special relationship, the defendant assumes responsibility and the claimant reasonably relies on the statement. On the facts the bank's disclaimer prevented any assumption of responsibility, so the claim failed. The absence of payment did not in itself prevent a duty arising, and the reference had in fact been inaccurate.
Question 10
An investor bought shares in a company relying on audited accounts that negligently overstated profits, and suffered a loss. Applying Caparo Industries v Dickman, to whom do the auditors normally owe a duty of care in respect of their statutory audit report?
- A) To any member of the public who reads the accounts
- B) To any existing shareholder who buys further shares in reliance on the accounts
- C) To any potential investor whom the auditors could foresee might rely on the accounts
- D) To the company, and to the shareholders only as a body for the purpose of exercising their governance rights
Show answer & explanation
Answer: D) To the company, and to the shareholders only as a body for the purpose of exercising their governance rights
In Caparo the House of Lords held that the statutory audit is for the shareholders as a body to exercise informed control of the company, not to guide individual investment decisions. Auditors therefore owe no duty to individual shareholders or potential investors buying shares, unless additional facts show a special relationship, such as where the auditor knew the accounts would be relied on by a specific party for a specific transaction (as considered in ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn). Mere foreseeability of reliance is insufficient.
Question 11
In which situation does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur most commonly assist a claimant in negligence?
- A) Where the thing causing harm was under the defendant's control and the accident would not normally happen without negligence, and the cause is unknown
- B) Where the defendant has admitted liability in correspondence
- C) Where the claimant has voluntarily accepted the risk of injury
- D) Where the defendant is a professional whose conduct is supported by a responsible body of opinion
Show answer & explanation
Answer: A) Where the thing causing harm was under the defendant's control and the accident would not normally happen without negligence, and the cause is unknown
Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') allows an inference of negligence where the defendant controlled the thing, the event would not ordinarily occur without negligence and there is no explanation of how it happened, as in Scott v London and St Katherine Docks (sacks of sugar falling from a warehouse). The defendant must then show it was not negligent. The professional standard reference describes the Bolam test, which helps defendants rather than claimants.