SQE1 Tort Law.

A man buys a sealed bottle of fruit smoothie from a market stall and gives it to his partner as a gift. The smoothie was produced and bottled by a manufacturer and supplied to the stallholder in opaque bottles that cannot be inspected before they are opened. When the woman drinks it she discovers the partly decomposed remains of an insect in the bottle and becomes seriously ill with gastroenteritis. Because the smoothie was a gift, the woman has no contract with either the stallholder or the manufacturer. She wishes to claim against the manufacturer in negligence for her illness.

Which of the following best describes whether the manufacturer owed the woman a duty of care?

1. The manufacturer owed her a duty of care, because a manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer of its products even where there is no contract, provided injury from a defective product is reasonably foreseeable. Correct
2. The manufacturer is strictly liable for any defect in the product, so the woman need not prove that the manufacturer fell below any standard of care.
3. The manufacturer owed her no duty, because a duty of care for a defective product can only arise where the claimant can establish a pre-existing special relationship with the manufacturer.
4. The manufacturer owed her no duty, because a duty of care in negligence arises only where there is a direct contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the person injured.
5. The manufacturer owed her no duty at common law, because liability for unsafe consumer products is governed exclusively by statute.

A firm of accountants is engaged by a manufacturing company to audit its statutory accounts. The audited accounts are published and filed at Companies House. An investor with no connection to the company reads the published accounts and, relying on the healthy figures they show, buys a large parcel of shares on the open market. The figures had been negligently overstated; the company collapses and the investor loses his money. He sues the accountants, who say they never knew of him and prepared the accounts only for the company's statutory purposes.

Which of the following best describes how a court will decide whether the accountants owed the investor a duty of care, and the likely outcome?

1. The court will ask only whether the investor's loss was reasonably foreseeable; because careless accounts can foreseeably mislead investors, a duty is owed.
2. The court will ask whether the loss was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties, and whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty; applying these, the accountants are unlikely to owe the investor a duty. Correct
3. The court will ask whether the accountants acted intentionally, whether the investor suffered loss, and whether that loss was caused by the accounts; a duty is owed because all three are present.
4. The court will ask whether the accountants breached a statutory duty owed to investors as a protected class under companies legislation, and a duty is owed on that basis.
5. The court will impose a duty automatically, because a professional who prepares figures always assumes responsibility to anyone who later relies on them.

A company buys a recently constructed commercial unit. Some years later it discovers that the concrete floor slab was negligently designed by the building contractor and is slowly cracking. The unit is not dangerous to occupy, but the defect reduces its value and will be expensive to put right. The company has no useful contractual claim against the now-dissolved developer and instead sues the building contractor in negligence for the cost of the remedial works.

Which of the following best describes whether the buyer can recover the repair costs in the tort of negligence?

1. The buyer can recover the repair cost in negligence, because a builder owes the same duty to avoid economic loss as it owes to avoid physical injury.
2. The buyer cannot recover the repair cost in negligence, because the cost of repairing a defective but non-dangerous building is pure economic loss, which is not recoverable in negligence; the older approach that would have allowed recovery no longer represents the law. Correct
3. The buyer can recover, because the cracking is physical damage to property and so the loss is consequential, not pure, economic loss.
4. The buyer can recover, provided it can show that the defect was reasonably foreseeable when the slab was designed.
5. The buyer cannot recover only because its claim is out of time; had it sued sooner the repair cost would have been recoverable in negligence.

A primary school was holding a sports day on the school playing field. During a running race, a ten-year-old pupil tripped on an uneven patch of ground and broke her wrist. The uneven patch had been caused by recent building work near the field, and the school had been aware of the hazard for several days but had not taken any steps to mark it or prevent children from running over it. The child's parents sued the school for negligence, arguing that the school had failed to take reasonable care to protect their daughter from a foreseeable risk of injury. The school argued that children frequently trip and fall during physical activities and that the injury was simply an unfortunate accident.

Which of the following best explains why a school owes a duty of care to its pupils that is higher than the ordinary duty of care owed between adults?

1. The school owed a higher duty because it had entered into a contractual relationship with the parents that included specific safety undertakings for all school activities.
2. The school owed a higher duty because schools are classified as public bodies and are therefore subject to the same strict liability standards as government departments.
3. The school owed a higher duty only if the parents had specifically requested additional supervision for their daughter during the sports day.
4. The school owed a higher duty only if the uneven patch was created deliberately by the school rather than being a natural feature of the ground.
5. The school owed a higher duty because children are less able to appreciate and guard against risks to their own safety, requiring those in charge of them to exercise greater care. Correct