Home > Tort Law

Tort Law

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: Why is the right to sue in private nuisance now restricted to those who have a proprietary interest in the land affected? Do you agree with the rule?

Answer: Private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of land. This interference may be deliberate or accidental, and there is no need for the claimant to prove negligence to...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 555 | References: No | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: April 01, 2016 | Coursework ID: 960

Question: “A company should always be liable for the acts of its employee if a tort is committed by the employee while at work”

Explain the validity of this statement with reference to case law.

Answer: Vicarious Liability is a situation where a person is liable for torts committed by a third party to the claimant. This does not mean that the third party involved is not liable,...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 815 | References: No | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: April 01, 2016 | Coursework ID: 959

Question: Tort Problem Question: Luke had just obtained his driving licence and borrowed his father’s car to take his girlfriend Jane on a trip to the coast. Luke and Jane got into the car whilst Jane’s mother Amy saw them off from the balcony of her flat. Jane turned around in the front seat to wave to her mother. To do so she took off her safety belt and twisted around. Luke was trying to show off by pulling away at such a high speed that he left black tyre marks on the road. He got distracted by Jane’s movement and because he was travelling so fast, he lost control of the car, and it crashed into the pavement and a tree. Jane was flung through the windscreen and obtained multiple broken bones and severe lacerations to her face. Luke, who was wearing his seatbelt, suffered only a few bruises.

Jane will have to undergo extensive cosmetic surgery and the doctors told her that although they would do the best they can, there was unfortunately no way she would be able to continue pursuing her dream of becoming a fashion model. Jane was due to sign, the day after the crash, a modelling contract which would have earned her £2million. Because of her injuries she now cannot pursue this.

Amy, Jane’s mom, saw the whole accident from the balcony of her flat. Seeing her teenage daughter flung through the windscreen of the car and then severely injured gave her a massive shock. She became so depressed that she had to stop working as a primary school teacher. Her GP diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Advise Luke as to his possible liability and defences in negligence.

Answer: The issue is to advise Luke as to his potential liability as a driver in negligence to Jane and Amy. His actions will be assessed according to the principles of negligence in...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1390 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2015 | Date submitted: February 01, 2016 | Coursework ID: 950

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: Problem scenario: Molly is a single mother. She takes her daughter Rhonda (a two year old infant) to a local playground. While lighting a cigarette, Molly starts talking with another young parent, Dilbert. Molly is distracted by Dilbert's good looks and gritty charm. Meanwhile, Rhonda starts to wander over to the road.

Dilbert notices a possible catastrophe and rushes out after Rhonda. Dilbert just manages to save Rhonda from being run over by Bob, who is driving a van within the speed limit and quite safely. However, Dilbert has too much forward momentum and collides with Bob's van. Dilbert is seriously injured. Bob skids off the road and crashes into some playground equipment. Luckily, no children are using the equipment.

Laura, driving at speed behind Bob sees the above-related events and put her foot down hard on the brakes. Laura's car skids on an oil slick and crashes into a tree. Some distance behind the tree was Leonard. Leonard thought that Laura's car might hit him and he started running away screaming 'oh Lord, don't take me now!' Leonard has an underlying personality disorder and develops a paranoid fear of going out into the street. As a result he loses his job and his livelihood.

The accident involving Leonard is witnessed by Sherry, Rhonda's grandmother, who is also at the park. Sherry suffers from a brief fright, but believes that she will be alright. However, she later develops post-dramatic stress disorder as a result of this event, combined with the news that Rhonda barely escaped serious injury. She had not seen the incident involving Rhonda herself because she hadn't busy setting out the picnic lunch.

Identify any action available in the tort of negligence and analyse the elements of the tort accordingly.

Answer: Dilbert v Molly Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis1 sets out that if someone has charge over a child they are expected to take reasonable care to prevent them from causing harm to others....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 75% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2297 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2013 | Date submitted: February 03, 2015 | Coursework ID: 903

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: 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: 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: 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


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.