Home > Tort Law

Tort Law

Question: To what extent do you think that the law of defamation represents an un-
warranted restriction on freedom of speech, particularly in the area of political comment?

Answer: In seeking to assess whether or not the law of defamation represents an un- warranted restriction on freedom of speech, it is sensible to first define what defamation is, the scope of...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 68% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2226 | References: No | Date written: October, 2009 | Date submitted: November 24, 2009 | Coursework ID: 569

Question: ‘Two causes may both be necessary preconditions of a particular result . . .
yet the one may, if the facts justify that conclusion, be treated as the real,
substantial, direct or effective cause and the other dismissed . . . and ignored
for the purposes of legal liability…’ Does this statement accurately reflect the law and, if so, does it allow a judge to choose any previous act as the real cause of the claimant’s damage?

Answer: The ‘but for’ test is often employed by the courts in deciding whether a particular act was the cause of a claimant’s injury....

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 68% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1658 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: April 15, 2009 | Coursework ID: 563

Question: ‘Although the decision of the House of Lords in Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978) was welcomed as a rationalisation of the law, it is now regarded as too simplistic and the so-called ‘incremental’ approach is now universally used to determine the existence of a duty of care.’

Discuss this statement.

Answer: While an attempt to formulate a general test or principle to decide whether, in any particular circumstances, a duty of care arose was made in Heaven v Pender (1883), it was not...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 68% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1455 | References: No | Date written: January, 2009 | Date submitted: March 10, 2009 | Coursework ID: 559

Question: ‘The threefold test itself provides no straightforward answer to the vexed question of whether or not, in a novel situation, a party owes a duty of care…It seems to me that the outcomes (or majority outcomes) of the leading cases cited above are in every or almost every instance sensible and just, irrespective of the test applied to achieve that outcome. This is not to disparage the value of and need for a test of liability in tortuous negligence, which any law of tort must propound if it is not to become a morass of single instances. But it does in my opinion concentrate attention on the detailed circumstances of the particular case and the particular relationship between the parties in the context of their legal and factual situation as a whole.’ Lord Bingham in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank PLC (2006) UKHL 28 Critically evaluate this statement with reference to appropriate legal authorities.

Answer: There is a current debate within the tort of negligence as to which approach should be utilised to establish if a duty of care is owed in a novel situation. The most...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 68% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2987 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2008 | Date submitted: June 02, 2009 | Coursework ID: 496


B E T W E E N:
Jack and Jill Hill was a married couple but have had marital problems. After months of disagreement Jack moved out of the family home in July 2014 and into a rented accommodation. Jack maintained his job at Ignite Fireworks PLC.

On 03/10/2014 due to an electrical fault at Ignite Fireworks PLC a number of fireworks in containers detonated resulting in an explosion. Jack who was completing a nightshift was trapped in the premises.

Mr Spratt the site manager raised the alarms, contacted emergency services and contacted Jill who was still Jack’s emergency contact.

Jill initially assumed that Jack was involved in a minor incident. Arriving on scene at 7am, she witnessed numerous fire engines and ambulances. At the emergency triage area Jack had received emergency treated and was covered by a blanket, only his singed hair, blackened face, burnt hand and a tube inserted into his throat was visible. Witnessing this cause Jill to break down and weep and shake uncontrollably. Jack was transferred to Midlands Hospital where he stabilised. Jill remained at his side for the entire week before he was discharged and returned to his family home.

Subsequently Jill brought about a claim for negligently inflicted psychiatric harm as she displayed Post-traumatic stress disorder and suffered frequent flash backs of the scene.

The Trial Judge Lean found the following facts, (i) Jill had suffered a medically recognised psychiatric disorder from nervous shock, (ii) When Jill first saw Jack, he was in a controlled state and was not being treated, (iii) Jack and Jill subsequently divorced.

Judge Lean found that Jill could recover as secondary victim on the grounds that, as spouse it was clear that she had a close tie of love and affection with Jack and arriving at the factory Jill had witnessed the immediate aftermath and was therefore proximate to the accident in time and space.
The case is being appealed by Ignite Fireworks PLC in the court of appeal.

As there was a two and a half hour time delay between the time of the accident and Jill seeing Jack, having been treated and in a controlled state, it cannot be said that Jill had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the accident.

The appeal to succeed.

The appeal to be dismissed.

Answer: The Law at present The law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is in a state of disarray, as Lord Steyn mentions that the law in this area “is...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3471 | References: No | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: May 05, 2015 | Coursework ID: 922

Question: Consider the attached article, written within a few days of the decision in Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990], nearly twenty three years ago, and discuss whether the developments in this area of the Tort of Negligence since that decision has now clarified the position on pure economic loss.

Obligations II Assignment Two

Answer: This essay discusses the extent to which the restrictions arising from Murphy v Brentwood DC [1990] have been reconciled by recent developments on pure economic loss in the Tort of Negligence, with...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1400 | References: Yes | Date written: October, 2013 | Date submitted: April 17, 2014 | Coursework ID: 861

Question: Explore operation and effectiveness of the so-called ‘general defences’ in tort.

Answer: There are a number of ‘general defences’ in tort, with which a defendant my rely upon, in every action in tort as appropriate. Different from the special defenses, that are available only...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2017 | References: No | Date written: January, 2009 | Date submitted: November 05, 2009 | Coursework ID: 576

Question: ‘Although many manufacturers feared the introduction of the Consumer
Protection Act 1987, they are in a no worse position since the Act than before.’

Critically discuss the above statement, paying particular attention to recent case law.

Answer: Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was introduced into English law to implement the EC Directive 85/754/EEC relating to product liability. The main provision of the Act is to be...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1905 | References: No | Date written: October, 2009 | Date submitted: November 01, 2009 | Coursework ID: 565

Question: The current law relating to third party liability is incoherent and lacks clarity. Universal principles must be laid down in order to provide consistency within the law.

Discuss with reference to case law.

Answer: In order to assess the premise in question, the circumstances in which negligence can arise for harms inflicted by third parties require analysis. Furthermore, the question of a lack of clarity in...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 66% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2388 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2006 | Date submitted: October 13, 2008 | Coursework ID: 39

Question: Alphie, a minor celebrity, was recently admitted to hospital following an accident in which he damaged his leg. Due to his shock, Alphie lost consciousness shortly after he was brought into the hospital. The doctor who examined him was very concerned, and called the surgeon who decided it was necessary to remove two of Alphie’s toes. When he woke therefore, Alphie was missing his toes and was particularly upset that he had not agreed to this.

During Alphie’s week long stay in hospital to recover, the man in the bed beside him, Jack, was very disruptive. Alphie found this increasingly irritating as he could not sleep. He told Jack to ‘pipe down’ but Jack insisted ‘I’ll do what I like’. At this point Alphie sat up in his bed and shouted, ‘you know, you are very lucky I can’t get up right now, or I swear I would bash your head in.’ In response, Jack, got up from his own bed and grabbing Alphie by the collar whispered menacingly in his face ‘just watch yourself boy, I can hurt you more easily than you can harm me.’ Alphie was left very shaken.

When Alphie’s friend Susan visited she offered to put a sleeping drug in Jack’s water. Alphie agreed and Susan drugged Jack’s water while he was in the bathroom. Seeing her opportunity, Susan also blocked the bathroom door with a hospital trolley, trapping Jack in. Jack was shut in the bathroom for almost 10 minutes, but because he was showering, a hospital porter moved the trolley before he tried to get out. Jack therefore never realised he was trapped. When he drank some water a few minutes later, Jack fell asleep and felt quite poorly when he woke up.

On leaving hospital, Alphie gave an interview to a press reporter. He told her all about his stay in hospital, and joked that he and Susan had ‘got their own back’ on Jack. Since he read this in the newspaper, Jack has suffered depression and nightmares for which he has needed medical treatment.

Advise Alphie and Jack of any claims they may have in tort.

Answer: A may have a claim in battery (the unlawful contact which is direct and intentional (or reckless)). There’s no minimum level of violence which the law will to accept and the force...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 800 | References: No | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: December 06, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1041

Page 3 of 4« 1 2 34 »

New user?

Registering is fast
and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

  1. Register with us
  2. Pay for instant access
  3. Or submit 3 pieces
    of your work for
    free access


Adobe Reader is required to access all coursework & essays. (pdf)
PayPal handles payments on our behalf. All major credit cards and currencies accepted.
A PayPal account is not nessesary.