negligence — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Which of the following is NOT one of the four essentials of negligence?

   • Duty of care
   • Breach of duty
   • Direct physical entry onto land (correct answer)
   • Damage

   Explanation. Direct physical entry onto land is the essence of trespass, not negligence. Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damage.

2. Unlike trespass, negligence:

   • Is actionable per se
   • Requires the plaintiff to prove actual damage (correct answer)
   • Never applies to industrial pollution
   • Requires direct physical interference

   Explanation. Negligence is not actionable per se — the plaintiff must show actual loss or injury, unlike trespass.

3. In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), the House of Lords established:

   • The rule of absolute liability
   • The 'neighbour principle' — a duty of care owed to those closely and directly affected by one's acts (correct answer)
   • The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher
   • That contract is required before any duty of care can arise

   Explanation. Donoghue v. Stevenson gave the 'neighbour principle', holding a duty of care can exist without a contract, wherever the plaintiff is someone the defendant ought reasonably to have in contemplation.

4. The standard of care in a negligence claim against an industrial polluter is measured against:

   • What the specific defendant subjectively believed was adequate
   • What a reasonably prudent operator in that industry would have done (correct answer)
   • The strictest possible safety standard achievable with unlimited resources
   • No fixed standard exists

   Explanation. The standard is objective — measured against what a reasonably careful/prudent operator in that line of business would have done.

5. Res ipsa loquitur may be applied by a court when:

   • The plaintiff has no evidence at all and wishes to skip proving negligence entirely
   • The accident is of a kind that would not normally happen without negligence, and the cause was within the defendant's exclusive control (correct answer)
   • The defendant admits fault voluntarily
   • Only in cases of absolute liability

   Explanation. Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence from the facts of the accident itself when it wouldn't normally occur without negligence and the instrumentality was under the defendant's exclusive control.

6. Which of the following would typically establish a breach of duty in a pollution-negligence case?

   • The operator installed treatment equipment exceeding industry standards
   • The operator failed to maintain or inspect safety equipment that later failed and caused an escape (correct answer)
   • The operator complied with every applicable regulation
   • The operator had no knowledge of any risk and could not reasonably have known

   Explanation. Failing to maintain or inspect safety equipment that then fails and causes an escape is a classic example of falling below the standard of reasonable care.

7. What is the key difference between negligence and strict/absolute liability?

   • There is no difference — they are the same rule
   • Negligence requires proof of fault; strict/absolute liability does not (correct answer)
   • Strict/absolute liability requires more proof than negligence
   • Negligence only applies to individuals, never to companies

   Explanation. Negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant fell below a reasonable standard of care; strict and absolute liability do not require fault to be proved at all.

8. A defendant who proves it took 'all reasonable care' can escape liability in:

   • A negligence claim (correct answer)
   • An absolute liability claim
   • Both negligence and absolute liability claims equally
   • Neither — reasonable care is never a defence

   Explanation. Taking all reasonable care is a complete defence in negligence, but is no defence at all once absolute liability applies.