Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: James owns a small bakery in a residential neighborhood. One day, he decides to install an outdoor seating area for customers. To create the seating area, he places several tables and chairs on the sidewalk directly outside his shop. However, James does not leave enough space for pedestrians to pass comfortably. A neighbor, Sarah, complains that she has to walk into the street to get around the seating area, which is dangerous, especially with heavy traffic. After a few weeks, Sarah trips over one of the chairs that has been pushed out onto the sidewalk and injures her ankle. She decides to take legal action against James.   Question: What legal principle is primarily at play in Sarah's case when she decides to sue James for her injury?

• Trespass to Land – Sarah is suing because James has unlawfully occupied public space with his seating area.
• Negligence (Duty of Care) – Sarah is suing because James failed to ensure the sidewalk was safe for pedestrians.
• Nuisance (Unreasonable Interference) – Sarah is suing because James's seating area unreasonably interferes with her ability to use the sidewalk.

📚 Похожие вопросы по этой дисциплине

• Read the dialogue and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Kelly: Wow, that's a lot of information on tort law. Did you understand all of it? Mark: Honestly, most of it went over my head. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of negligence. Kelly: I remember studying this in college. Negligence is when someone breaches their duty of care and causes harm to another person, right? Mark: Yeah, that sounds about right. But there are also certain defenses available in cases of negligence. Like for psychiatric injury or economic loss. Kelly: Wait, so can anyone sue for those things under the premise of negligence? Mark: Not necessarily. The courts use a three-step test to determine if there is a duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim. Kelly: Ah, I see. So basically, the first step is proving that the harm was reasonably foreseeable? Mark: Exactly. And then the second step looks at the relationship between the two parties - whether it's one of proximity or not. Kelly: And finally, the third step considers if it would be fair and just to hold the defendant liable for their actions. Mark: Right. It seems like the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman was a turning point in establishing this threefold test. Kelly: Yeah, it definitely set a precedent. But I can imagine it must have been challenging determining liability in a complex situation like that. Mark: Definitely. And with the ever-changing laws and legal systems, it's important to constantly stay informed and educated.   Question: What are some defenses available in cases of negligence?
• Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: Emily is a law student in England who is interested in pursuing a career in the legal profession. She is trying to understand the differences between barristers, solicitors, and judges. Recently, she attended a seminar where different legal professionals spoke about their roles. After the seminar, Emily has a few questions regarding who does what in the legal system.   Question: Which of the following statements correctly describes the role of a barrister in England?
• Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: James is a university student studying law in England. He is particularly interested in understanding the differences between civil and criminal courts, as well as the structure of the legal system, including appeals and tribunals. After attending a guest lecture on the topic, he reflects on the advantages of having a case head in the Crown Court and how appeals work.   Question: Which of the following statements correctly describes an advantage of having a case head in the Crown Court?