Home > Tort Law

Tort Law

Question: Causation and Remoteness

Answer: In order to establish negligence, it must be shown that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the damage suffered by the claimant. There are two stages to establishing causation: 1. Factual Causation....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Tort Law | Year: 1st | Words: 8378 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: December 10, 2010 | Coursework ID: 658

Question: Breach of Duty

In order for the defendant to be liable for negligence, the first stage is to show that there is a duty of care owed to the claimant. Once this is done, it must then be shown that the defendant breached his duty. Brach of a duty of care essentially means that the defendant has fallen below the standard of behaviour expected in someone undertaking the activity concerned. In Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co, Alderson B stated that “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon these considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” This is a question of fact.

Therefore, two questions arise from this statement:

1. How high is the standard of a reasonable person? Should the courts always apply the reasonable man test objectively, or can they take into account subjective elements?

2. How do we determine what a reasonable man would do?

Answer: The Standard of the “Reasonable Person” As we have seen from the statement of Alderson B in Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co, the standard of care is an objective one, so the...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 5928 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: March 29, 2011 | Coursework ID: 654

Question: Problem Question: Jock has bought a new motorcycle, a 1,450cc Harley Davidson, having traded in his 50cc scooter, and decides to go and show his friend, Julia. She is very impressed with the large and shiny bike and asks for a ride, but unfortunately, neither she nor Jock have a crash helmet for her; she is insistent, and Jock finally gives in and, against his better judgement, agrees to let her ride pillion.

Once on the road, however, he starts to speed up and is oblivious to her asking him to slow
down as the wind makes it difficult to hear her. They reach a stretch of road where there are a lot of trees and bends, but Jock does not slow down as they come round a blind bend at
Cotterell Farm, where the farmer, Mr Cotterell, is crossing the road with his small
grandson, Nick.

Jock hits the brakes, swerves, and misses them, but crashes through the drystone wall. Julia
is thrown from the bike and suffers severe head injuries and bruising to the body, Jock is
only bruised. Mr Cotterell and Nick were unhurt, however Mrs Cotterell rushes out of the
farmhouse, sees the bike and runs towards it, thinking her grandson and husband have been
injured. As she crosses the road without stopping to look, a car, being driven at nearly 70
mph by Penny, swerves but cannot avoid her and she is killed instantly. Penny's car runs
into a wall, is badly damaged and she suffers a broken arm.

Advise the different parties as to their tortious liabilities.

Answer: The law of negligence is a tort which generally exists to provide compensation if someone is harmed by another person’s wrongful act or omission. The preliminary criteria still used today was established...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 4028 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2005 | Date submitted: February 22, 2014 | Coursework ID: 840

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: 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: Case Study: 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).

Answer: Introduction This question requires an examination of the tort of negligence, specifically in relation to establishing the necessary causative links to permit the recovery of damage. A successful claim in the tort...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3077 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: April 08, 2014 | Coursework ID: 853

Question: Case study: 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 Murphy in respect of any claims he may have (if any).

Answer: In order to have a successful claim in a tort case, it must be clear that the defendant owes claimant a duty of care and there was a breach of the duty...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3070 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: April 26, 2014 | Coursework ID: 868

Question: ‘The difficulties of proceeding with an action in private nuisance are grave,
but the prospects of potential claimants have increased with the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998.’

Discuss.

Answer: The law on private nuisance, frequently presents a number of uncertainties with respect to its application in any given scenario....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 69% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3009 | References: No | Date written: February, 2009 | Date submitted: April 15, 2009 | Coursework ID: 568

Question: ‘The House of Lords has stated in the clearest possible terms in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999) that the law on nervous shock or psychiatric damage is so illogical that only Parliament can come up with a solution.’

Discuss the above statement.

Answer: The law on nervous shock, or ‘psychiatric damage’ as it is sometimes now called, has developed considerably since the original refusal to impose liability in Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coalthas (1888). It...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3005 | References: No | Date written: March, 2009 | Date submitted: June 27, 2009 | Coursework ID: 561

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


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.