3 Written Questions

1. Telephone bomb hoax, business disrupted for an hour; not a wide enough sector of the public
2. Driver hadn't taken reasonable steps to light lorry after he had broken down. Highway obstruction, liable.
3. Obscene telephone calls over a period of 5 1/2 years to 13 women, liable.

3 Multiple Choice Questions

1. Disrupting traffic by queueing in a road, court will consider the interests of different parties.
   1. Lyons v Gulliver
   2. R v Johnson
   3. Public Nuisance
   4. Madden
2. Badly organised pop festival, liable.
   1. Ware v Garston Haulage
   2. Attorney General for Ontario v Orange Productions
   3. Attorney General v PYA Quarries
   4. Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby BC
3. Birth defects to children through inhalation of harmful substances. Personal injuries are recoverable.
   1. Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby BC
   2. Ware v Garston Haulage
   3. Lyons v Gulliver
   4. Public Nuisance

3 True/False Questions

1. Attorney General v PYA Quarries → Driver hadn't taken reasonable steps to light lorry after he had broken down. Highway obstruction, liable.

   True        False

2. Public Nuisance → Activity which interferes with the safety or convenience of a section of the general public.

   True        False

3. Tate & Lyle Industries v Greater London Council → D erected ferry terminals in Thames causing silt making it hard for large vessles to dock; public suffered special damage beyond average river user. had to pay for dredging to clear water.

   True        False