TORTS LAW EXAMS QUESTIONS

INSTRUCTIONS: This examination is worth 30 Marks and is divided into two parts. Part I comprises
multiple choice questions, and Part II comprises essay/scenario questions. You are to answer all questions in
Part I and one question from Part II. Your approach must be analytical not descriptive. You must craft and
defend arguments. Think carefully about the question before you start to write. No effort has been made to
achieve legal verisimilitude, and laws that are included in questions should be considered accurate only
hypothetically, and for purposes of answering the questions on this exam. Do not assume any additional
fact or law, except those laws studied in the course, without stating explicitly your assumption and
explaining why such additional information is necessary for your answer. Do NOT write your name
anywhere on the exam paper. Only write your student number

FOR PART I, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING OR UNDERLINING YOUR CHOICE ON THE
QUESTION PAPER.

PART I
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
(Each question is worth 1 Mark)

INSTRUCTIONS: From the choices that follow each question, select the one answer that BEST answers the
question, even if an argument can be made for the correctness of another choice. CIRCLE OR UNDERLINE
YOUR CHOICE ON THE QUESTION PAPER.

Question 1:
1. Below are a number of statements about the case of Donoghue v Stevenson:

(i) Prior to the case, a duty of care was generally only owed in contractual relationships.
(ii) A contractual duty was owed to Donoghue’s friend who had bought the ginger beer for her.
(iii) The friend could have sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for the breach of duty.
(iv) Donoghue was able to succeed because the ratio decidendi of the case established that a manufacturer
owes a duty of care to the end consumer of his products.

Which of these statements are accurate?

A. (i) only
B. (i) and (iii)
C. (i), (ii) and (iv)
D. (iv) only

Question 2
George is a custodian at a large office building. Maxine and Linda, partners in a law firm that occupied the top
floor of the building, were working late one night on a corporate deal. George had been instructed to always
ensure that the glass doors at the entrance to the law firm were securely locked when he left the building.
George thought he heard voices in the conference room while he cleaned the other offices, but he assumed it
was just a television set that had been left on. An hour after he locked the front doors and left, Maxine and
Linda finished their work and were heading home when they discovered that the only exit was closed. If Maxine
and Linda sued George for false imprisonment, which of the following is true?
 Page 2 of 5

A. George would not be liable unless he intended to confine Maxine and Linda.
B. Maxine and Linda could only recover if they suffered damage as a result of being locked in;
C. Both (a) and (b) are correct;
D. Neither (a) nor (b) is correct.

Question 3
Ben rode the Express Train every day, during rush hour when the buses were usually crowded. When he did,
he made a point of standing next to Anita, who also commuted on the Express Train to her job. Anita found
Ben’s presence annoying, but she would acknowledge that she might be called hypersensitive. The stop where
she got on the train was further down the line, so she typically couldn't get a seat and had to stand. Usually Ben
was already on the train when she entered, and even if he was seated he would offer his seat to someone else
and work his way over to where she stood. He would always stand so that his front faced her rear. The jostling
of the train always resulted in Ben’s crotch bumping up against Anita’s rear. If Anita sued Ben for battery,
which of the following is correct?

A. Anita would prevail if she could show that Ben intended to have contact with her, which he knew she
would find offensive;
B. Ben would prevail if a reasonable person would consider the contact a normal aspect of riding in a
crowded train;
C. Only A is correct;
D. Both A and B are correct
E. Neither A nor B is correct.

Question 4
Dabir, aged 6, took a lighter from the kitchen of his parents’ home and, intending to cook some food, went
behind his neighbours’ garage to light a fire. He had seen his parents start fires and light candles. However, his
parents had told him never to build a fire without adult supervision or close to buildings, and Dabir had never
built a fire on his own. The fire burned under control for a few minutes and then Dabir attempted to put the fire
out by dousing it with water, covering it with dirt and stamping on it. The next morning, Dabir’s neighbours
discovered that their garage was on fire. The garage was badly damaged, and the neighbours sued Dabir and
his parents. As the judge, you are asked to determine what standard of care the jury should apply to Dabir's
actions. Your best choice would be to ask the jury to use the following standard of care:

A. A child of the same age, capacity, intelligence, and experience under the same or similar circumstances.
B. A reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.
C. A person engaged in abnormally dangerous activities.
D. A reasonably prudent person with a similar physical disability.

Question 5
What is meant by the term 'actionable per se'?
A. Actionable only in the civil courts
B. A tort of strict liability
C. Actionable without proof of damage
D. Actionable at the instance of the injured party only.

Question 6
 Page 3 of 5

Which of the following are criteria for imposing liability for economic loss caused by a negligent
misstatement under the original Hedley Byrne principle?

(i) the possession of special skill or expertise by the defendant

(ii) reasonable reliance on the advice given by the defendant
(iii) knowledge of this reliance on the part of the defendant
(iv) an assumption of responsibility by the defendant for the advice given

A. (i) and (ii)

B. (i) and (iii)
C. (ii), (iii) and (iv)
D. All of the criteria

Question 7
The law of contract is different from the law of tort in which way?

A. It is actionable in both the civil and criminal courts

B. It generally concerns a relationship between two parties only
C. Contracts are always written
D. Tort is made up predominantly of statute law

Question 8
What case laid down the fundamental test for determining duty of care?

A. Bourhill v Young
B. Donoghue v Stevenson
C. Heaven v Pender
D. Carparo v. Dickman
 Page 4 of 5

Question 9
The Caparo test for duty of care provides that three factors must be taken into account. Which of the
following is not included?

A. “Fair, just and reasonable”

B. Proximity
C. Having your neighbour in contemplation
D. Foreseeability

Question 10
Why did the claimant in Donoghue v Stevenson bring her action in tort instead of contract?

A. Because the claimant had not actually purchased the drink herself
B. Because the purchaser of the drink was indirectly injured
C. Because the seller of the drink was not responsible for the snail in the bottle
D. Because the presence of the snail was a defect in quality rather than a danger

Question 11
Which of the following is not an exceptional situation in which there may be held to be liability for an
omission?

A. An existing relationship with the wrongdoer involving control

B. A relationship indicating an assumption of responsibility
C. The failure to remove a danger created by nature
D. An obstacle on the highway of which the defendant was aware

Question 12
In which of the following scenarios is a duty of care least likely to be found?

A. A dentist gives the wrong anaesthetic to a patient

B. A police officer fails to fingerprint a dangerous criminal
C. A local authority places the wrong traffic sign at an intersection
D. A barrister carelessly conducts his client's court case

Question 13
In which of the following situations is the 'reasonable man' test not modified?

A. An elderly defendant
B. A skilled defendant
C. A very ill defendant
D. A child defendant

Question 14
The effect of the application of res ipsa loquitur is:

A. To put the burden wholly on the defendant to disprove negligence beyond reasonable doubt
 Page 5 of 5

B. To ensure that the claimant wins his case

C. To allow both parties to assume certain facts despite lack of proof
D. To make his defence, the defence will now have to put forward a plausible explanation consistent with
lack of negligence

Question 15
Which of the following is not a requirement for invoking res ipsa loquitur?

A. There must be no explanation for the cause of the accident

B. The cause of the accident must have been under the defendant's control
C. The defendant is not able to disprove breach
D. The accident must be of the kind which does not normally happen in the absence of negligence

PART II
ANSWER ONE QUESTION
(Each question is worth 15 Marks)

Question 16
David was travelling to Accra from Takoradi when he came upon a fuel tanker. He tried to overtake the fuel
tanker several times but the tanker driver, Kojo Trouble, kept swerving into his path. Finally, when the road
widened, he accelerated and managed to overtake the tanker. As he did so, he made an obscene gesture to the
driver of the tanker and then followed that with yell, shouting, “Foolish man, you craze?” Some few minutes
later he stopped at a roadside market to purchase some fruit and vegetables, stretch his legs, then continued.
About fifteen minutes later, he detected a change in the car’s movement and reasoned that he needed to pump
his tires. He pulled into the next fuel station to put air in his tires. At the fuel station he noticed that an area
where a fuel tanker was refuelling the pumps, had been was marked off by cones. He recognised the tanker as
the one he had overtaken. He ignored the tanker, then drove through an area that was clear of cones, leading to
the air pump. Kojo Trouble, on seeing him, waved him to a stop and when David stopped, Kojo Trouble put
his legs against David’s front bumper, then fell, screaming loudly in pain. The gas station attended, hearing the
screams, rushed out and helped Kojo Trouble up. David, incensed by what had happened, advanced towards
Kojo Trouble his fists clenched, saying, “You lying, son of a ….” and then was stopped by a third party. “I’ll
show you,” David said, then walked angrily away. David was about to get into his car and drive away when
Kojo Trouble demanded that the police be called since there had been a motor vehicle accident, adding, “You
have to keep him here until the police arrive.” The gas station attendant asked David to wait in a room at the
station until the police arrived. When the police arrived, Kojo Trouble, feigning indignation, told the police
that, “I was just standing here fuelling and he deliberately hit me with his car. This is after I’d flagged him to
stop because of the fuelling. David is taken to the police station where he is formally charged with dangerous
driving. Resolve the issues that arise in this scenario.

Question 17
Discuss the importance of the following cases, Donoghue v. Stevenson,[1932] AC 562, Anns v. Merton
London Borough Council,[1978] AC 728, and Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman, [1990] 2 AC 605, to the
development of the law of torts.