Tort Law Exam 2025 Questions and Answers
Tort Law Exam 2025 Questions and Answers
Course:
Tort Law
Institution:
Tort Law
Tort Law Exam 2025 Questions and Answers
After purchase, you get:
✅ Instant PDF Download
✅ Verified answer explanations
✅ Refund if not Satisfied
✅ Prepared for 2025/2026 test cycle
Document Information
Uploaded on: | September 10, 2025 |
Last updated: | September 10, 2025 |
Number of pages: | 22 |
Written in: | 2025/2026 |
Type: | Exam (elaborations) |
Contains: | Questions & Answers |
Tags: | Tort Law Exam 2025 Questions and Answers |
Seller Information

SophiaBennett
Reviews Received
User Reviews (0)
Exam (Elaborations)
$9.50
Bundle Deal! Get all 4 docs for just $12.99
Add to Cart
100% satisfaction guarantee
Refund Upon dissatisfaction
Immediately available after purchase
Available in Both online and PDF
$9.50
| 0 sold
Discover More Resources
Available in a Bundle



TORT LAW Fall 2025 Bundled Exams Questions and Answers |100% Pass |Verified and Updated
Includes 4 Documents
$12.99
Content Preview
Tort Law Exam 2025 Questions and Answers Case example for proprietary interests - legal standing - --Answer --Malone v Laskey [1907] A woman was injured while using the toilet when its cistern fell on top of her. It had been disloged by vibrations emanating from the electricity generator on the neighbouring defendant's property. CoA held that she had no cause of action in nuisance against the defendant, because she had no proprietary interest in the premises - the house belonged to her husband's employer. She was 'merely present in the house'. Key case for But for Test - --Answer --Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Commitment [1969] - Doctor failed to properly examine a man in a&e department. It transpired that the men was suffering from arsenic poisoning from which he subsequently died. The Doctor admitted negligence but said he had not caused the man's death. It could not be said that 'but for' the doctor's negligence the man would have survived. Court held as the doctor's negligence was not a necessary condition for the mans death, he could not be held liable for it. ....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1