Broken Bottles, Broken Causation?
Best Answer: D
The logistics company’s driver negligently failed to secure the wine before transport. The company will be vicariously liable for that negligence because the driver was acting in the course of his employment.
The drunk driver was also negligent. He owed a duty of care to road users and others who might reasonably suffer damage from his driving, and the damaged wine falls within the scope of foreseeable property damage resulting from a collision. This is sufficient to establish liability.
The key issue is whether the drunk driver’s conduct breaks the chain of causation. It does not. The purpose of securing cargo is to protect it from foreseeable incidents arising during transportation, including collisions. The expert evidence shows that the wine would probably have survived the collision had it been properly secured. Accordingly, the logistics company (which is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence) remained an operative cause of the loss.
Both the logistics company and the drunk driver therefore contributed to the damage and are liable as concurrent tortfeasors.
Get unlimited attempts to the SQE1 Mini Mock Exam by clicking here,
and enter this access code: passwithus
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A is incorrect. The logistics company is not the only liable party. The drunk driver’s negligence also contributed to the loss. Although the company is vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence, that does not exclude liability on the part of another tortfeasor.
B is incorrect. The driver may be personally liable for his own negligence, but he is not exclusively liable. The company is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence, and the drunk driver also contributed to the loss.
C is incorrect. A negligent or even criminal act by a third party does not automatically break the chain of causation. Here, the collision was a foreseeable risk of road transport. The company’s failure to secure the wine remained a substantial cause of the damage.
E is incorrect. This option is tempting, but its reasoning is inaccurate. E's reasoning is "all of them are negligent". The logistics company has not been shown to be negligent in its own right. There is no evidence of negligent hiring, training, supervision, or a failure to implement proper procedures. Its liability exists only because the law attributes the driver's negligence to it (vicarious liability).
In practice, the claimant’s claim would ordinarily be brought against the logistics company (which is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence) and the drunk driver. The driver’s negligence is already attributed to the company through vicarious liability.
Test your exam readiness with our SQE1 Mock Exam and see how you perform.
https://www.sqesuccess.top/sqe-mock
For more information, read our FAQ.
Read SQE Exam Passing Tips and other SQE MCQ Explanation Here.
Blog Categories
© 2026 SQE Success. All rights reserved.
SQE Success is a trading name of Sharp Vision Consulting Co., Ltd.