AQA A-Level Law: Tort — Practice Questions

These questions practise section 3.3 Tort of AQA A-level Law (7162), examined on Paper 2. They move from quick recall to short explanations, applied advice and a full problem answer, so that every part of the specification - rules, theory, negligence, occupiers’ liability, nuisance, Rylands, vicarious liability, defences and remedies - is tested at least once.

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Tort study guide | Tort revision notes

---

Section A - multiple choice

1. Which case established that a learner driver is judged by the standard of a reasonably competent driver? [1] A Bolton v Stone B Nettleship v Weston C Mullin v Richards D Latimer v AEC

2. Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which type of loss can a trespasser claim for? [1] A Damage to clothing B Personal injury C Loss of earnings from a damaged van D All of these

3. Which statement about secondary victims of psychiatric injury is correct? [1] A Watching a live television broadcast satisfies the own-senses requirement B A close tie of love and affection is presumed between parent and child C Rescuers are always primary victims D Foreseeability of physical injury is sufficient

Section B - short answers

4. Explain the rule on liability for pure economic loss caused by negligent acts. [5]

5. Explain the requirements for liability for a negligent misstatement. [5]

6. Explain how the courts decide whether a person is an employee for the purposes of vicarious liability. [5]

7. Explain the factors a court considers when deciding whether to grant an injunction in private nuisance. [5]

Section C - applied questions

8. Priya runs a garden centre. She stores large quantities of fertiliser chemicals in a shed. During a storm the shed roof leaks and the chemicals wash into next-door farmland owned by Callum, killing his crops. Advise Callum whether he could claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. [10]

9. Noor, a delivery driver for Fastline Ltd, is told never to give lifts. She gives a lift to a hitch-hiker, Ben, and crashes through careless driving. Ben is injured. Advise Ben whether Fastline is vicariously liable. [10]

Section D - extended problem and evaluation

10. Harbourside Leisure runs a swimming complex. A cleaner leaves a wet floor without a warning sign and Jodie, a customer, slips and breaks her wrist; she was running at the time. Jodie’s husband Leo, at home, hears about the accident on the radio and arrives two hours later to see her in pain in the first-aid room; he develops anxiety disorder. That night, Tariq climbs the locked perimeter fence to use the diving pool, which has been drained for repairs behind a “Danger - pool empty” sign, and is injured diving in.

Advise Harbourside of its liability in tort to Jodie, Leo and Tariq, and evaluate whether the law in this area strikes a fair balance. [30]

Answers

1. B. [1]

2. B - s1(8) excludes property damage. [1]

3. B. [1]

4. Pure economic loss is financial loss not caused by physical damage to the claimant or their property [1]. It is generally not recoverable in negligence [1]. Economic loss consequential on physical damage is recoverable [1]. In Spartan Steel v Martin (1973) the claimant recovered for the damaged melt and the profit on it, but not for profit lost while the power was off [1]. Policy: avoiding indeterminate liability (floodgates) and leaving such loss to contract and insurance [1].

5. Liability comes from Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) [1]: a special relationship in which the defendant has special skill or knowledge [1]; the defendant knew or ought to have known the claimant would rely on the statement [1]; reliance was reasonable [1]; and the defendant voluntarily assumed responsibility (not effectively disclaimed). Caparo (1990): auditors owe no duty to members of the public who buy shares, because the statement was not made for that purpose [1].

6. No single test [1]. Control test - whether the employer controls how the work is done (Yewens v Noakes, 1880) [1]. Integration test - whether the worker is part of the organisation (Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison, 1952) [1]. Economic reality/multiple test - wages, control, and whether other terms are consistent with employment, such as who provides equipment and bears the financial risk (Ready Mixed Concrete, 1968) [1]. Relationships “akin to employment” can also qualify (Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society, 2012), but not genuine independent contractors (Barclays, 2020) [1].

7. An injunction is discretionary [1]. The court balances the claimant’s right to enjoy land against the defendant’s activity and the public interest [1] - in Miller v Jackson (1977) damages were given instead because of the cricket club’s value to the community [1]; in Kennaway v Thompson (1981) the injunction limited the times of powerboat racing [1]. Damages in lieu are available where Shelfer (1895) criteria apply, though Coventry v Lawrence (2014) favours a more flexible approach [1].

8. [10] Apply each element, with authority:

• Bringing on to land and accumulating: the chemicals were stored there deliberately.
• Likely to do mischief if it escapes: large quantities of chemicals are dangerous.
• Non-natural use: storage in bulk is arguably “extraordinary and unusual” (Transco, 2003), compared with ordinary domestic use (Rickards v Lothian, 1913). A garden centre storing some fertiliser may be an ordinary use - a strong answer weighs both.
• Escape: the chemicals passed from Priya’s land to Callum’s (Read v J Lyons, 1947).
• Foreseeable type of damage: crop damage is foreseeable (Cambridge Water, 1994).
• Claimant’s standing: Callum owns the land (Transco).
• Defence: Act of God requires a natural event no human foresight could guard against (Nichols v Marsland, 1876); an ordinary storm is unlikely to qualify.
• Conclusion: Callum is likely to succeed if the use is non-natural; otherwise he may claim in negligence or nuisance.

9. [10]

• Stage 1: Noor is an employee on the multiple test (wages, control, Fastline’s van).
• Stage 2: driving is the job she is employed to do; giving a lift is a prohibited act.
• Limpus v London General Omnibus (1862): a prohibited way of doing an authorised act is within the course of employment.
• Rose v Plenty (1976): employer liable where the passenger was helping the employer’s business, contrast Twine v Bean’s Express (1946), where a hitch-hiker given a prohibited lift could not claim.
• Ben confers no benefit on Fastline, so Twine is the closer analogy; Fastline is probably not vicariously liable, though Noor is personally liable in negligence.
• Credit discussion of the close-connection test (Lister, 2001; Mohamud, 2016).

10. [30] Indicative content:

Jodie (OLA 1957). Harbourside is the occupier; Jodie is a visitor owed the common duty of care (s2(2)). A wet floor without a sign falls below the standard of reasonable care. Factual causation: but for the missing sign she would not have slipped. Defence: contributory negligence for running (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945), with damages reduced by a just and equitable proportion. Remedy: special damages (lost earnings, treatment) and general damages (pain, loss of amenity); she must mitigate. Vicarious liability for the cleaner is an alternative route.

Leo (psychiatric injury). Anxiety disorder is a recognised illness. He is a secondary victim, so Alcock (1992) applies. Close tie: husband, presumed. Proximity: arriving two hours later, seeing her in the first-aid room, is like McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983); hearing on the radio alone is not enough. Evaluate: a broken wrist may not be a sufficiently horrifying event, and the outcome is uncertain.

Tariq (OLA 1984). A trespasser. s1(3): Harbourside knew of the danger and fenced it; it may not have had reasonable grounds to believe someone would climb in at night (Ratcliff v McConnell, 1999). A warning sign (s1(5)) and the obviousness of the risk (Tomlinson v Congleton BC, 2003) make liability unlikely; volenti (s1(6)) may also apply.

Evaluation. The 1957 and 1984 Acts balance protection of visitors against the freedom of occupiers, with less protection for trespassers who chose to enter; Tomlinson emphasises personal responsibility. The Alcock mechanisms are criticised as arbitrary, but justified by floodgates and fraud concerns. A reasoned conclusion is needed.

Where marks are usually lost

• Naming Alcock without applying each control mechanism to the facts.
• Treating an employee’s prohibited act as automatically outside the course of employment.
• Ignoring the claimant’s own fault when calculating outcome.
• Evaluation tacked on in one sentence at the end instead of running through the answer.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a 30-mark answer take? On a 2-hour, 100-mark paper you have a little over a minute per mark, so roughly 35-40 minutes including planning.

Do I need to quote section numbers? Accurate section numbers, such as s2(2) OLA 1957 and s1(3) OLA 1984, show precise knowledge and are credited.

Can a single scenario test several torts? Yes. Question 10 combines occupiers’ liability, psychiatric injury and defences, which is typical of an extended AQA problem.

Official specification

AQA A-level Law (7162) specification, section 3.3 Tort - aqa.org.uk.