Torts

The principle of 'volenti non fit injuria' applies here because sports participants voluntarily assume the inherent risks of the game, such as a fair tackle. Therefore, the tackler is not liable. Option A is incorrect because strict liability does not apply to standard, non-hazardous sports activities where consent is implied.

The driver is not liable because a sudden, unforeseen mechanical failure despite careful driving means there was no breach of the duty of care. Strict liability is incorrect because negligence claims require proving a breach of duty, and driving carefully does not trigger strict liability under standard negligence principles.

Both are liable because vicarious liability makes the employer jointly and severally liable with the employee for torts committed during employment. A diagram for this topic isn't available yet — the worked example below walks the same reasoning step by step.

• !Option D is incorrect because the employer's liability does not absolve the actual wrongdoer of their personal liability for negligence.
• !Option A is incorrect because strict liability does not apply to standard, non-hazardous sports activities where consent is implied.
• !Strict liability is incorrect because negligence claims require proving a breach of duty, and driving carefully does not trigger strict liability under standard negligence principles.

Answer each from memory — you'll see instantly whether you're right and why.

Run a focused 10-question mini-mock on Torts and see it stick.