General Defences to Tortious Liability — 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. The maxim volenti non fit injuria means:

   • No wrong is done to one who consents (correct answer)
   • No action arises from a base cause
   • The thing speaks for itself
   • One who acts through another acts himself

   Explanation. Volenti non fit injuria means no injury is done to one who consents to a known risk.

2. For volenti non fit injuria to succeed as a defence, the plaintiff must have had:

   • Mere knowledge of the risk
   • Full knowledge of the risk AND voluntary acceptance of it (correct answer)
   • A written contract with the defendant
   • No connection with the defendant at all

   Explanation. Knowledge alone (scienti non fit injuria) is not enough; the plaintiff must also have voluntarily accepted the risk.

3. In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933), the court held the racing club not liable because:

   • The plaintiff was not a spectator
   • A spectator at a hazardous sport voluntarily accepts its ordinary risks (correct answer)
   • There was a valid contract excluding liability
   • The plaintiff caused the accident himself

   Explanation. A spectator at an inherently hazardous sport voluntarily accepts the ordinary risks incidental to it, including a car leaving the track.

4. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio bars a plaintiff's claim only where:

   • The plaintiff has ever committed any crime
   • The plaintiff's own illegality is the actual foundation of the claim (correct answer)
   • The defendant is completely blameless
   • The plaintiff is a trespasser

   Explanation. The defence applies only where illegality is the actual foundation of the claim, not merely present in the background.

5. In Stanley v. Powell (1891), the defence that succeeded was:

   • Volenti non fit injuria
   • Inevitable accident (correct answer)
   • Necessity
   • Statutory authority

   Explanation. A shot deflecting off a tree at an unforeseeable angle, despite ordinary reasonable care, was held to be an inevitable accident.

6. An 'act of God' as a defence requires that the event be:

   • A routine, expected natural event
   • Caused by human intervention
   • Extraordinary, unprecedented, and involving no human agency (correct answer)
   • Merely unforeseen by the specific defendant

   Explanation. An act of God must be an extraordinary natural event, with no human agency, beyond reasonable foresight or precaution.

7. In Nichols v. Marsland (1876), the defendant was not liable because the escape of water was caused by:

   • The plaintiff's own negligence
   • An extraordinary, unprecedented rainfall (act of God) (correct answer)
   • A statutory duty
   • An intentional act of the defendant

   Explanation. An unprecedented rainfall burst artificial lakes and swept away four bridges. It was held an act of God, and the defendant was not liable.

8. Private defence, as a general defence in tort, requires that the force used be:

   • As much as the defendant wishes
   • Proportionate to the imminent danger (correct answer)
   • Used only after the threat has passed
   • Applied regardless of proportionality

   Explanation. Private defence requires the danger to be real and imminent, and the force used must not exceed what the situation reasonably demands.

9. In Cope v. Sharpe (1912), a gamekeeper burned heather on another's land to stop a fire reaching his employer's land. The act was excused under the defence of:

   • Necessity (correct answer)
   • Volenti non fit injuria
   • Statutory authority
   • Act of God

   Explanation. The act is excused if it was done to prevent a greater harm than the harm caused, and the danger reasonably appeared real at the time.

10. Statutory authority as a defence protects a defendant only for harm that is:

    • Any harm at all, however caused
    • The inevitable, carefully-exercised consequence of the authorised act (correct answer)
    • Harm caused by negligence beyond the authorised act
    • Harm caused after the statute is repealed

    Explanation. The defence covers only the necessary or inevitable result of exercising statutory power with reasonable care, as in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co. (1860).