Cambridge A-Level Law: Law of Tort — Practice Questions (9084)

These questions practise the whole of Topic 4 Law of tort in Cambridge International A Level Law (9084): negligence, torts affecting land, torts affecting the person, and general defences and remedies. A strong Paper 4 answer identifies each tort, proves every element with authority, applies it to the facts, considers defences and reaches a conclusion on liability and remedy.

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 — Cambridge holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or Cambridge’s own resources.

Related: Law of tort study guide and revision notes.

Section A - scenario questions (Paper 4 style)

1. Wild Acres is an adventure park. A sign at the gate says “Visitors use the zip wire at their own risk”. Kofi, aged 9, visits with his school. The park has hired an engineering firm, checked its qualifications and received a safety certificate for the zip wire, but a bolt the firm fitted incorrectly gives way and Kofi breaks his leg. That evening, Lena climbs the locked fence to swim in the park’s lake, despite a large “No swimming - deep water” notice, and is injured diving into the shallow end. Kofi’s father, who was not at the park, sees Kofi’s injuries in hospital the next day and suffers severe depression.

Discuss the liability of Wild Acres to Kofi, Lena and Kofi’s father. [25]

2. Delta Foods opens a bakery in a quiet residential street. Its extractor fans run noisily from 3 am every day, and the smell of frying reaches nearby houses. Mira, who owns a house next door, says the noise wakes her, and her lodger Sam, who has no tenancy, also complains. Delta stores large gas cylinders in its yard; one explodes and debris breaks Mira’s greenhouse. When Mira goes to complain, Delta’s manager blocks the only door of the office for 20 minutes, saying “You are not leaving until you agree to drop this”, and pushes her aside when she tries to leave.

Advise Mira and Sam of any claims in tort and the remedies available. [25]

Section B - essay questions (Paper 4 style)

3. Assess whether the Caparo three-part test provides a clear and fair way of deciding when a duty of care exists. [25]

4. “The law on liability for nervous shock is arbitrary and in urgent need of reform.” Discuss. [25]

5. Evaluate whether the defences of volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence achieve a fair balance between claimants and defendants. [25]

6. Evaluate the use of damages and injunctions as remedies in the law of tort. [25]

Indicative answers

1. Wild Acres [25]

• Occupier: Wild Acres controls the park (Wheat v E Lacon, 1966).
• Kofi - Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: a lawful visitor owed the common duty of care (s2(2)). Under s2(3)(a) an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor, 1922). Kofi is 9 and supervised by his school, so Phipps v Rochester (1955) is less relevant.
• Independent contractor, s2(4)(b): Wild Acres is not liable for the contractor’s faulty work if it acted reasonably in entrusting the work, took reasonable steps to check the contractor was competent and, where reasonable, checked the work. Technical work on a bolt is like the lift in Haseldine v Daw (1941), which a lay occupier cannot inspect; the certificate suggests Wild Acres is not liable and Kofi should sue the firm in negligence.
• Notice: a sign is not a warning that makes the visitor safe (s2(4)(a)), and a business cannot exclude liability for negligent personal injury (UCTA 1977, s2(1); CRA 2015, s65 for consumers).
• Lena - Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984: she is a trespasser. A duty arises only under s1(3). Wild Acres knew of the lake and fenced it, but the risk of diving into shallow water is obvious. In Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003) and Ratcliff v McConnell (1999) no liability arose for such obvious risks freely chosen by an adult. The warning notice (s1(5)) and volenti (s1(6)) support this. Lena is unlikely to succeed.
• Kofi’s father - nervous shock: depression is a recognised illness. He is a secondary victim, so Alcock (1992) applies: close tie presumed for a parent; but seeing Kofi the next day is outside the immediate aftermath (contrast McLoughlin v O’Brian, 1983, where the mother arrived within hours). His claim probably fails, which also allows evaluation of the arbitrary line-drawing.

2. Mira and Sam [25]

• Private nuisance: noise and smell are indirect interferences. Reasonableness: residential locality (Sturges v Bridgman, 1879), daily duration from 3 am, ordinary sensitivity (not Robinson v Kilvert, 1889). Likely a nuisance.
• Standing: Mira owns the house and can sue. Sam is a lodger with no proprietary interest, so he cannot sue in private nuisance (Hunter v Canary Wharf, 1997).
• Defences: prescription needs 20 years; statutory authority needs a statute; that Delta has planning permission or that the area is changing does not by itself defeat a claim (Coventry v Lawrence, 2014).
• Rylands v Fletcher: gas cylinders were brought on to land, are likely to do mischief if they escape, and bulk storage is arguably a non-natural use; debris escaped to Mira’s land and property damage was a foreseeable type (Cambridge Water, 1994). Mira owns land, satisfying Transco (2003).
• False imprisonment: blocking the only exit is total restraint (contrast Bird v Jones, 1845) without lawful authority; 20 minutes is enough.
• Assault and battery: the words and conduct put her in fear of immediate force; the push is a direct, intentional application of force (Cole v Turner, 1704). None of these torts needs proof of damage.
• Remedies: a prohibitory injunction to stop night-time noise, possibly limited to hours (Kennaway v Thompson, 1981), with damages in lieu considered under Shelfer (1895) as relaxed in Coventry v Lawrence; damages for the greenhouse; damages, possibly aggravated, for the trespass torts.

3. Caparo essay [25]

• AO1: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932); Anns v Merton (1978) two-stage test and its overruling in Murphy v Brentwood (1991); Caparo v Dickman (1990); Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) stressing precedent and incremental development.
• For: structured, allows policy to be openly considered (Hill, 1989), controls floodgates.
• Against: “fair, just and reasonable” is vague and unpredictable; the stages overlap; Robinson suggests the test is not a universal formula.
• Conclusion with a reasoned view.

4. Nervous shock essay [25]

• AO1: primary victims (Dulieu v White, 1901; Page v Smith, 1996); Alcock (1992); McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983); White (1999) on rescuers and police officers.
• Arbitrariness: close tie presumed only for some relationships; aftermath measured in hours; television excluded; police officers denied while some bystanders’ claims might succeed.
• Justification: floodgates, fraudulent claims, proportionality of liability.
• Reform: Law Commission Report No 249 (1998) proposals for close-tie claimants; no legislation has followed. Conclusion.

5. Defences essay [25]

• Volenti: complete defence; requires knowledge and free choice (Smith v Baker, 1891); succeeded in ICI v Shatwell (1965) and Morris v Murray (1991); limited in sport (Condon v Basi, 1985).
• Contributory negligence: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; apportionment (Froom v Butcher, 1976).
• Evaluation: the move from all-or-nothing defences to apportionment is fairer; volenti is rarely allowed, so most loss-sharing goes through the 1945 Act; reductions are discretionary and can be unpredictable.

6. Remedies essay [25]

• Damages: compensatory purpose (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal, 1880); special and general; personal injury and future loss, lump sums versus periodical payments; death claims under the 1934 and 1976 Acts; exemplary damages (Rookes v Barnard, 1964).
• Injunctions: discretionary; prohibitory, mandatory and interlocutory (American Cyanamid, 1975); balancing public interest (Miller v Jackson, 1977); damages in lieu (Shelfer; Coventry v Lawrence).
• Evaluation: lump sums are a guess about the future; injunctions protect rights but can harm community interests. Policy issues and possible reform. Conclusion.

Where marks are usually lost

• Not identifying the claimant’s status (visitor, trespasser, secondary victim) before applying the law.
• Letting a lodger sue in private nuisance.
• Missing the independent-contractor rule under s2(4)(b).
• Writing a narrative of cases in essays with no evaluation; AO3 is 30% of Paper 4.

Frequently asked questions

How do I structure a 25-mark tort scenario? Take each claimant in turn. For each, name the tort, prove each element with authority, consider defences and finish with liability and remedy.

Should I discuss vicarious liability? Only in outline. In 9084 it sits under 4.1.1, nature of liability, so mention it where an employee commits the tort, without a detailed analysis.

Do I need to calculate damages? Occasionally a scenario gives figures. Apply contributory negligence reductions to the total, and separate special from general damages.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Law (9084) syllabus for 2026, 2027 and 2028 - official syllabus PDF.