Self-test questions: Breach of Statutory Duty

. Which of the following is NOT required to establish the tort of breach of statutory duty (in addition to causation & lack of defences).

Does the statute give rise to a claim in tort law?

Is a duty owed to the Claimant?

Is the duty reasonably foreseeable?

Has the Defendant breached their duty?

Does the Claimant's loss/injury fall within the scope of the statutory duty?

. Which of the following statutes gives rise to an indirect tort of breach of statutory duty, where a statute imposes a duty but does not identify the civil remedy for breach? (As compared to a direct duty where the liability arises directly according to the statutory provisions).

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

Occupiers' Liability Act 1984

Consumer Protection Act 1987

Road Traffic Act 1988

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

. Gina is a child who is taken to a swimming pool by the school at which she is a pupil, for a compulsory school swimming lesson. Unfortunately, she is injured. Gina (by her litigation friend) sues the local education authority responsible for the school for breach of their statutory duties. Are the local authority in breach of their statutory duties?

Yes, given Gina's vulnerability as a child, and the fact that this was a class during the school day, it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a non-delegable duty on the local authority.

Yes, given Gina's vulnerability as a child, and the fact that this was a class during the school day, there would be an automatic non-delegable duty on the local authority.

No, the school delegated the duty to a responsible third party, therefore the local authority would not be in breach.

No, the failure of the swimming pool workers to take reasonable precautions to protect Gina, means that the local authority cannot be responsible.

No, whilst the school/local authority have entrusted the task of running swimming lessons to a competent contractor (at the swimming pool) they cannot be in breach of their statutory duties.

. Daria is injured at work when a heavy freezer door opens and crushes her arm. Her employer was required by the (fictitious) Freezer Door Act to ensure that stoppers were in place to stop the doors swinging open without restriction, and they had not done so. What must be considered by the Court in relation to the statutory duty to assess whether it gives rise to civil liability?

The Court will consider parliamentary intention, and whether it is reasonable to infer an intention to create civil liability.

The Court will do what is fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Court will consider parliamentary intention and is looking for whether the purpose of the statute was regulating a particular activity in the public interest.

The Court will consider parliamentary intention and is looking for whether the purpose of the statute was not just regulating a particular activity in the public interest, but also to benefit a class of people (which includes Daria).

The Court will consider parliamentary intention and is looking for whether the purpose of the statute was to benefit a class of people (which includes Daria).

. Eduardo is injured at work when someone opens a heavy freezer door into his path as he is walking around his employer's warehouse. His employer was required by the (fictitious) Freezer Door Act to ensure that an alarm would sound as the door was opened, and whilst there was an alarm, it was not working at the time of the accident. The Freezer Door Act imposes criminal penalties for failing to operate or maintain an alarm on any freezer door. Will the existence of criminal penalties affect Eduardo's ability to bring a claim for breach of statutory duty?

Yes, the existence of criminal penalties will preclude a civil claim for breach of statutory duty.

Yes, the existence of criminal penalties indicates that Parliament did not intend concurrent tortious liability, so there is a strong presumption against the existence of a civil claim.

No, Eduardo must show that the purpose of the statute was not just regulating a particular activity in the public interest, but also to benefit a class of people (of which he was one) to establish a civil claim.

No, the existence of a criminal penalty strengthens Eduardo's argument that he can bring a concurrent civil claim for breach of statutory duty.

No, the criminal penalty is irrelevant when considering whether there can be a civil claim for breach of statutory duty.

. Ella is a lorry driver, who regularly visited the PowerCo Power Station in the 1960s to bring deliveries and take debris away as part of her job, she is not employed by PowerCo. Unfortunately, there was asbestos dust at the site and in her loads, and Ella is exposed. She brings a claim for breach of statutory duty against PowerCo under the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 which impose a duty on PowerCo to protect "persons employed". Will Ella's claim for breach of statutory duty be successful?

Yes, Ella was a "person employed" so falls within the class of people protected by the regulations and can bring a civil claim.

Yes, Ella can bring a claim for breach of statutory duty, as if the dust was impacting upon PowerCo's employees then it would also impact upon visitors.

No, Ella cannot bring a claim as she was not employed by PowerCo.

No, Ella cannot bring a claim as she did not fall within the class of people protected by the regulations.

No, Ella cannot bring a claim as the regulations were not solely intended to protect people affected by asbestos at work.

. Pierre is the owner of a ship carrying a cargo of Jia's piglets. He is under a statutory duty to keep them securely penned when at sea to prevent the spread of disease, but he fails to do so. During a storm many of the piglets were swept overboard and died. Will Jia's claim for breach of statutory duty be successful in this case?

Yes, the obligation under the statute was to keep the animals penned at sea and Pierre failed to do that, so is in breach of the statutory duty.

Yes, the duty was breached and it does not matter that the harm did not fall within the scope of the duty.

No, the duty imposed would give rise to criminal liability and therefore precludes a tortious claim.

No, the duty imposed was to prevent the spread of disease, and this harm did not fall within the scope of the duty.

No, the duty imposed was to prevent the disease, and the duty does not give rise to a tortious claim.

. Manni is employed by a transport company to drive a lorry between different sites. On one occasion there is heavy snow during his journey and his lorry becomes caught in a snowdrift. Manni breaks with company procedure and tries to dig the lorry out, in order to complete his journey. His boots (provided by the company) have a hole in the sole and he suffers frostbite. The boots are provided by the company under regulation 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations (PPE) 1992. There is an obligation under regulation 7(1) that PPE should be maintained in good repair. Is the transport company in breach of its statutory duty to Manni?

Yes, the obligation under the statute was to protect the employee, the employer has breached their duty by failing to maintain the PPE in good repair so is in breach of the statutory duty.

Yes, the duty was breached and it does not matter that the harm did not fall within the scope of the duty.

No, the duty imposed would give rise to criminal liability and therefore precludes a tortious claim.

No, the breach was caused by Manni's actions in breach of company rules, so the harm is not recoverable.

No, the duty imposed was to protect from impact injuries, and this harm fell outside the scope of that duty.

. Which of the following is NOT one of the "indicators" which the Courts use to determine whether Parliament intended a civil remedy when drafting a statute?

Whether the duty was imposed to protect a limited class of the public.

Whether the statute provides for other remedies.

Whether the statute's scope is limited and specific or general and administrative.

Whether various policy considerations apply.

Whether there is the option for judicial review as an alternative.

. Which of the following interests has been held to be specifically NOT protected by the tort of breach of statutory duty?

A Claimant's financial losses.

A child Claimant's welfare.

A Claimant's interests in goods.

A Claimant's interests in land.

A Claimant's bodily integrity.

Quiz Content