All Practice Exams
100+ Free FE-1 Law of Torts Practice Questions
FE-1 Examination - Law of Torts practice questions are available now; exam metadata is being verified.
✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
Not published Pass Rate
100+ Questions
100% Free
Loading questions...
Same family resources
Explore More Ireland FE-1 Solicitor Exams
Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.
2026 Statistics
Key Facts: FE-1 Law of Torts Exam
1 of 8
FE-1 Subjects
Law Society of Ireland
3 hours
Single Paper (3.5 hours online)
Law Society of Ireland
Answer 4 of 5
Essay/Problem Questions
Law Society of Ireland
50%
Pass Mark per Subject
Law Society of Ireland
~EUR 128
Fee per Subject (2026)
Law Society of Ireland
100+
Practice Questions Here
OpenExamPrep question bank
FE-1 Law of Torts is one of eight subjects in the Law Society of Ireland's FE-1 entrance examination for intending solicitors. It is assessed by a single three-hour paper (3.5 hours online) of five essay and problem questions, of which candidates answer four, with a 50% pass mark. The syllabus is Irish tort law, with negligence at its core: the Irish duty-of-care approach in Glencar Explorations (rather than the English Caparo test), breach and the standard of care, causation, remoteness, nervous shock (Kelly v Hennessy), and pure economic loss. It also covers occupiers' liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, employers' and vicarious liability, product liability under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991, trespass, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, and defamation under the Defamation Act 2009 as amended (note the 2024/25 reforms, including the abolition of juries in High Court defamation actions). Defences and damages are governed by the Civil Liability Act 1961 (contributory negligence and apportionment) and the Personal Injuries Guidelines, with claims routed through the Injuries Resolution Board (formerly PIAB). The FE-1 is held twice yearly, each subject is sat individually, and all eight subjects must be passed within seven years of the first pass.
Sample FE-1 Law of Torts Practice Questions
Try these sample questions to test your FE-1 Law of Torts exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.
1In the Supreme Court decision in Glencar Explorations plc v Mayo County Council (No. 2) [2002] 1 ILRM 481, what did the court identify as the necessary ingredients of a duty of care in negligence in Irish law?
A.Foreseeability of damage, a relationship of proximity, and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of the given scope
B.Reasonable foreseeability of harm alone, following the broad neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson
C.A two-stage test of foreseeability followed by policy reasons negativing the duty, as in Anns v Merton
D.Foreseeability and proximity only, with public policy never being a relevant consideration
Explanation: In Glencar (No. 2), Keane CJ endorsed a three-element approach: in addition to reasonable foreseeability there must be a relationship of proximity, and the court must consider it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of the given scope. This effectively aligned Irish law with the Caparo approach and moved away from the expansive Anns two-stage test.
2A County Council unlawfully imposes a mining ban that destroys a plaintiff's commercial venture. The ban is later found to be ultra vires. On the authority of Glencar, what is the most likely outcome of a negligence claim against the Council for the resulting economic loss?
A.The plaintiff recovers automatically because the Council's act was ultra vires
B.The plaintiff fails because illegality of the administrative act does not, by itself, create a private law duty of care sounding in damages
C.The plaintiff recovers because economic loss is always recoverable against public authorities
D.The plaintiff recovers only if the Council acted maliciously
Explanation: In Glencar the Supreme Court held that even though the mining ban was ultra vires, the plaintiffs failed to establish any actionable wrong entitling them to damages. The unlawfulness of a public authority's decision does not in itself give rise to a private law duty of care; proximity and the fair, just and reasonable test must still be satisfied.
3Which formulation best states the standard of care applied when assessing breach of duty in Irish negligence law?
A.The defendant must guarantee the plaintiff's safety against all foreseeable risks
B.The defendant is liable only where the conduct was reckless or intentional
C.The defendant must act as a reasonable and prudent person would in the circumstances, weighing the probability and gravity of harm against the cost of precautions
D.The defendant is judged by their own subjective belief about what was reasonable
Explanation: Breach is measured against the objective standard of the reasonable person, balancing the probability and gravity of the foreseeable harm against the social utility of the conduct and the cost of avoiding the risk. This calculus reflects the approach in cases such as Bolton v Stone and was applied by the Irish courts (e.g. O'Gorman v Ritz).
4A junior hospital doctor administers treatment that an experienced consultant would have recognised as inappropriate. By what standard is the junior doctor's conduct judged in an Irish medical negligence action?
A.No standard, because junior doctors are immune from negligence claims
B.The standard the junior doctor personally believed to be adequate given their inexperience
C.The standard of the most eminent specialist in the field
D.The standard of a reasonably competent doctor holding the post in question, not the lower standard of an inexperienced beginner
Explanation: A professional is judged by the standard of the reasonably competent member of that profession occupying the relevant post; inexperience is no defence. In Ireland the test for medical negligence derives from Dunne v National Maternity Hospital, requiring proof that no professional of equal status acting with ordinary care would have acted as the defendant did.
5Which Irish Supreme Court decision sets out the test for medical negligence, holding that a doctor is negligent only where no medical practitioner of equal specialist or general status, acting with ordinary care, would have followed the same course?
A.Kelly v Hennessy
B.Sinnott v Quinnsworth
C.Byrne v Ryan
D.Dunne (an infant) v National Maternity Hospital
Explanation: Dunne v National Maternity Hospital [1989] IR 91 established the Irish test for medical negligence, including the principle that a deviation from general and approved practice is required, and that a practitioner is not negligent merely for following a practice that other competent practitioners would also follow. It is the leading Irish authority on professional medical standard of care.
6A factory's negligence exposes a worker to a toxin, but the worker would have developed the same illness anyway from an unrelated genetic condition. Which element of the negligence action is most directly fatal to the worker's claim?
A.Duty of care
B.Breach of duty
C.Factual causation (the 'but for' test)
D.Remoteness of damage
Explanation: Factual causation is tested by asking whether, but for the defendant's negligence, the harm would have occurred. If the worker would have developed the illness anyway, the negligence is not a but-for cause and the claim fails on causation regardless of duty and breach.
7In a negligence claim, what does the requirement of 'remoteness of damage' (legal causation) primarily concern?
A.Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
B.Whether the kind of damage suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach
C.Whether the plaintiff contributed to the loss through their own carelessness
D.Whether the defendant intended to cause the harm
Explanation: Following The Wagon Mound (No. 1), recoverable damage is limited to harm of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach. Remoteness asks whether the type of harm, not its precise extent or manner, was foreseeable, and is distinct from factual causation.
8A negligent driver injures a plaintiff who, unknown to anyone, has an unusually thin skull, causing far greater injury than expected. How does the law treat the defendant's liability for the full extent of the injury?
A.The defendant must take the victim as found and is liable for the full extent of the injury (the 'eggshell skull' rule)
B.Liability is limited to the injury a normal person would have suffered
C.Liability is wholly excluded because the extent of harm was unforeseeable
D.Liability is reduced by 50% to reflect the victim's predisposition
Explanation: Under the eggshell (thin) skull rule, a tortfeasor takes the victim as found. Provided some personal injury of the relevant kind was foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm even if a peculiar susceptibility makes it far greater than expected.
9Which of the following is a settled requirement for recovery in a nervous shock (psychiatric injury) claim under the Irish test in Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3 IR 253?
A.The plaintiff must have suffered some physical impact in the accident
B.The plaintiff must always have witnessed the accident with their own unaided senses
C.The plaintiff must establish a recognisable psychiatric illness, not mere grief or upset
D.The plaintiff must be a spouse or parent of the primary victim
Explanation: Kelly v Hennessy requires, among other things, that the plaintiff prove a recognisable psychiatric illness that was shock-induced. Ordinary grief, sorrow or distress that does not amount to a recognised psychiatric condition is not actionable as nervous shock.
10In Kelly v Hennessy, the plaintiff was not present at the road accident but suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after being told of it and seeing her injured family members in hospital. What does this establish about the 'immediate aftermath' in Irish nervous shock law?
A.Shock caused by the immediate aftermath, including seeing injured relatives shortly afterwards, can satisfy the test
B.A plaintiff can never recover unless physically present at the moment of the accident
C.Recovery is barred where the plaintiff learns of the event from a third party
D.Only emergency rescuers may recover for psychiatric harm
Explanation: The Supreme Court in Kelly v Hennessy allowed recovery where the plaintiff's PTSD was induced by the shock of learning of the accident and witnessing the distressing aftermath when she saw her injured husband and children in hospital. Perception of the immediate aftermath can therefore satisfy the proximity requirement.
About the FE-1 Law of Torts Practice Questions
Verified exam format metadata for FE-1 Examination - Law of Torts is pending. The practice questions above remain available while official exam length, timing, passing score, fee, and administrator details are reviewed.