Home > Tort Law

Tort Law

Question: ADVOCACY SUMMATIVE ESSAY - WRITTEN SUBMISSION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (Civil Division)
B E T W E E N:
IGNITE FIREWORKS PLC
V.
JILL HILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVOCACY SUMMATIVE ESSAY - WRITTEN SUBMISSION 67%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SUMMARY OF FACTS
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.

2. GROUND 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.

3. APPELLANT OUTCOME
The appeal to succeed.

4. RESPONDENT OUTCOME
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: 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

Question: Amber Valley Primary School was closed 6 months ago by Amber Borough Council (ABC), the local education authority, which owns all the land and buildings. The school has been standing empty while ABC attempts to find a buyer for the site. Although ABC placed fencing around the site, local residents reported that youths had broken into the site on a number of occasions.

Last week a group of youths from a nearby young offenders institution, operated by Chigley Services Ltd (CS) under contract to the Home Office, broke into the disused school and set fire to it. The youths had been clearing rubbish from a neighbouring stream and were supposed to have been under the supervision of Justin and Jason, both of whom are CS employees. However, Justin and Jason had gone for a cigarette break and left the youths unsupervised at the time the break-in occurred.

The fire caused damage to neighbouring property including a baker's shop owned by Mark. It is likely to be many weeks before the business can reopen and Mark stands to lose many thousands of pounds in lost profits.

It later transpired that the fire would not have had time to spread to neighbouring property had the Fire Brigade acted more swiftly. The Amber Valley Fire engine was unavailable at the time and another engine had to be dispatched from Leicester. The crew got lost on the way because they put the wrong address in the sat-nav (satellite navigation) device.

Advise Mark in respect of any claims he may have (if any).

Grade A, University of London
LLB, 2nd year, Tort Law

Answer: In this question, we are asked to advise Mark as to the possible claims he might have. On the facts, the defendants are Justin and Jason, Chigley Services and the Fire Brigade....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3343 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2014 | Date submitted: April 23, 2014 | Coursework ID: 864

Question: Angela was visiting her friend Betsy. She complained of a severe headache and Betsy gave her a box of painkillers that had been prescribed by her (Betsy’s) doctor. On the outside of the box and on a leaflet inside, there was a note reading: “Do not consume with alcohol. May cause severe nausea and diarrhoea.” Angela had drunk two small glasses of wine. She took two of the painkillers (the recommended dose for an adult). An hour later she became violently ill and was admitted to the Downbeat Hospital. She was examined by Conrad, a doctor, and told him about the pills she had taken. Conrad arranged for her to be admitted and prescribed a drug to treat her condition. Daphne, the nurse on duty, misread the doctor’s notes and gave her only 10 per cent of the dosage that Conrad prescribed. Angela became more seriously ill and required painful and debilitating abdominal surgery. There is a strong possibility that, if she had been given the correct dosage, she would have recovered after a few days.

It has now been established that Angela suffered from an extremely rare allergy to one of the ingredients of the painkillers. No other case has been identified where a person taking one of these painkillers suffered a comparable reaction. It cannot be established whether the wine had contributed to the reaction.

Advise Angela as to any claims in negligence against the Downbeat Hospital.

Answer: The above question demands discussion whether Betsy (B), Conrad (C) and Daphne (D) had breached duty of care to Angela (A) and whether there is any intervening factor that is likely to...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Tort Law | Year: 1st | Words: 2368 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: October 26, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1032

Question: Are there objective standard problems relating to the law in tort?

Answer: In applying ‘objective standard’ the court takes little account of the personal characteristics of the defendant. Whether it is correct that a defendant can be held liable even though he or she...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 63% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 1st | Words: 878 | References: Yes | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: July 08, 2009 | Coursework ID: 526

Question: Assess the degree to which tort law is able to offer protection for a person’s right to privacy.

Answer: Strictly speaking, privacy is not explicitly recognised as a tort in its own right as shown in the very different cases of Wainwright v Home Office (2004) and Kaye v Rahertsan (1991),...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 69% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1993 | References: No | Date written: March, 2009 | Date submitted: October 22, 2009 | Coursework ID: 570

Question: Assess the development of economic tort by way of ‘Passing Off’.

Answer: This essay will assess the development of economic tort by way of ‘Passing Off’. Passing off is considered to be a misrepresentation of a business with another in a way likely to...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 61% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1067 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: November 18, 2009 | Coursework ID: 634

Question: Assess the impact of the Compensation Act 2006 on the tort of negligence.

Answer: The Compensation Act 2006 established several changes to the manner in which damages can be obtained by claimants and how certain aspects of tort law are perceived....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1854 | References: No | Date written: October, 2009 | Date submitted: January 02, 2010 | Coursework ID: 562

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: ‘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


Page 1 of 712 3 4 5 6 7 »

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

Categories

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.