Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
spent on Urban than on Tanzeer. The second is a claim against Wanda (and her
employers vicariously) for her arguable failure to treat him properly. Then the
interrelation of the claims has to be considered if both Urban and Wanda are in
breach of their duty of care.
Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to
use
Wooldridge v Sumner, Vowles v Evans. Cases on medical negligence such as
Whitehouse v Jordan and subsequent authorities. Cases on intervening cause such
as Robinson v Post Office and Webb v Barclays Bank.
Common errors
The most striking error was the large number of candidates who discussed in detail
the liability of Victor and Xain. The facts state that all the medical experts are
agreed that no fault could be found with their treatment: there is therefore no need
to discuss possible claims against them. A few answers tried to justify the
discussion by stating that according to Bolitho a judge could hold that a medical
practice was irrational, but a judge could hardly come to that view if there is no
medical evidence on either side at all critical of the conduct of the professionals.
Good answers to this question would
point out that Tanzeer had deliberately struck Sydney but that his conduct appeared
to fall within the rules of the game to which Sydney had consented, and therefore
actions in battery or negligence will fail. In Vowles v Evans (see Section 3.3.2 of
subject guide) the Court of Appeal held that a rugby referee owed a duty of care to
players. Although that case concerned rugby, the case will surely be followed in
other dangerous sports. If candidates happened not to know that case, they should
argue from first principles, but it is desirable to say something about why they think
it fair, just and reasonable to recognise a duty on referees. For instance, in Vowles
v Evans it was argued unsuccessfully that people would be unwilling to referee
amateur games in particular if they could be held liable for injuries to players. The
question then is whether Urban did not act as a reasonable referee would. If he is in
breach of duty, then (subject to arguments about the impact of Wandas treatment)
all the damage suffered by Sydney is foreseeable. Wanda as a professional has to
show the care of a reasonable paramedic: a difficult judgment has to be made and
a court might well conclude that she had a difficult to choice to make and a
reasonable person might well have decided to rush Sydney to hospital while other
reasonable ambulance crew might have decided to treat him on the spot. If she was
negligent, did this cause Sydneys injuries? It didnt cause the loss of his career as
a boxer because the facts state that, even if Wanda had been successful, he would
not have been able to resume his career accordingly only Urban can be liable for
damages for loss of career. What about the severe brain damage? Did that break
the chain of causation?
Poor answers to this question
wasted time on Victor and Zain as already stated. They also relied much too much
on Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies. It was noted last year that
candidates frequently misapplied these cases. They are concerned with the unusual
situation where there are two independent causes of the same damage. Here the
two causes of the damage are not independent. Wandas duty was to take care to
make Sydney better. The armed robbers who shot Mr Baker had no duty of care to
cure his original leg injury.
Student extract
Now Urban can say that Wandas act was a new and intervening cause
breaking the chain of causation (Knightley v Johns) but by an analogy to
Robinson v Post Office and Webb v Barclays Bank medical negligence or
sufficiently akin to employment existed and (ii) whether the tort was in the course of
that relationship, noting that the decision in the 2012 case was primarily about the
former although there was serious discussion of the latter. A really excellent answer
might also have noted that Lord Phillips said that the law was on the move and not
that it had reached a new destination. So a brief perceptive paragraph about further
developments would really have impressed (e.g. Lord Phillips refers to but does not
expand on recent sex abuse scandals in the employment industry). More generally
there is an issue as to whether there should be any connection (and if so what)
between relationships to which vicarious liability attaches and other legal
relationships (e.g. national insurance). The answer should definitely have devoted a
paragraph to the policy reasons that determine the existence and character of
vicarious liability.
Poor answers to this question
tended to give a rather out-of-date account of the traditional vicarious liability
doctrine with very poor analysis of the relationships that give rise to vicarious
liability and very little account of the 2012 case that was the subject of the question.
Question 3
Mars is employed as a sceneshifter at the studio of Orbital Films Ltd. He
decided to move a tower structure from one part of the studio to another
without dismantling it. He knew that this was contrary to the Film Sets
(Construction and Use) Regulations 2007 made under statutory authority. As
he moved it, the tower began to topple and then crashed. Castor and Pollux
are freelance stuntmen who were working that day at Orbitals studio. They
had worked together for many years on dangerous stunts and had developed
a complete trust in each other. At the time the tower fell Pollux was standing
some distance away but could see the tower collapse towards the place
where Castor was standing. He could not see exactly what was happening.
The tower had a lattice structure and amazingly it collapsed in such a way
that Castor was trapped uninjured, although he fainted and was completely
hidden from view. He was discovered and released when the structure was
lifted two hours after it fell. In the meantime, Ariadne, a receptionist at the
studio, phoned Castors contact number and spoke to his granddaughter,
Selene. She told Selene, Your granddads in a bad way. Get your mum to
come to the studio as fast as she can.
Castor, Pollux and Selene have all suffered recognised psychiatric illnesses.
Advise them.
General remarks
There are three claimants all suffering from recognised psychiatric damage. All
three of them might seek to establish liability on Orbital Films Ltd for the acts of their
employee Mars, who may have committed the tort of breach of statutory duty or that
of negligence. The three claimants require consideration of different aspects of the
topic of psychiatric damage. In addition Selene might have a differently structured
claim against Orbital Films Ltd based on vicarious liability for the possible
negligence of Ariadne.
Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to
use
An illustrative case on breach of statutory duty. Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police and subsequent cases on psychiatric damage including cases
such as AB v Tameside.
Common errors
The most common error was in relation to Selene. She is a secondary victim if the
tortfeasor being considered is Mars, but not if the tortfeasor being considered is
Ariadne. Many candidates amalgamated the two claims. Another common error lay
in the definition of secondary victim. Alcock provides that certain close relatives are
presumed to be in a relationship of love and affection. It does not say that they are
the only people who can sue as secondary victims. Others can do so if they can
prove that they did in fact have a sufficient relationship of love and affection.
A good answer to this question would
have briefly explored breach of statutory duty. Was the duty imposed only for the
protection of employees in the work place, thereby excluding Castor and Pollux
from its protection? If so, Mars is quite likely to be held negligent. Castor would be
treated as a primary victim: although he was not in fact physically injured, he must
have feared for his own safety as the structure was falling towards him. Pollux was
too far away to be in danger himself and could only be a secondary victim. He
would seem to satisfy the requirements of proximity and perception by his own
senses and might be able to prove that he had the necessary close relationship to
Castor although he was not a relative. Selene is not strictly within the Alcock
categories but might well show a close relationship with her grandfather: her more
serious problem as a secondary victim is that she does not appear to have
observed the accident or even its aftermath. As an alternative she might try to argue
that Ariadne gave the information in an unnecessarily insensitive way that caused
her distress. There has been some discussion of this in case law and in the
literature but there is no conclusive decision.
Poor answers to this question
committed some of the errors identified above. They also often spent time
discussing the film companys liability as occupiers, but it is impossible to argue that
the accident was the result even in the loosest sense of a danger arising from the
state of the premises. Also some answers spent too long on vicarious liability. Since
Mars is stated to be an employee and Ariadne is implicitly an employee and they
are certainly in the course of employment, there is no need for more than a single
sentence saying so.
Question 4
Frances is aged 80 and increasingly frail. Her daughter, Gwen, got in touch
with the local council. At a case conference the social services department
decided that Frances could continue to live at home but provided her with an
alarm to wear round her neck and pull to summon help if needed. Frances
however sometimes got confused and pulled the alarm by mistake.
One day Hettie, who was on duty in the social services office, saw that
Francess alarm had been activated. She thought that it was probably another
false alarm and ignored it. An hour later it sounded again and Hettie asked
Inge, an unqualified care assistant, to go round to Francess flat. Shortly
afterwards Gwen telephoned and spoke to Hettie, telling her that she (Gwen)
could not make contact with Frances. Hettie told her not to worry as the
situation was now under control.
In the meantime, Inge misunderstood her instructions and went to the wrong
part of town. She phoned for further advice and eventually reached Frances
after two hours. She found that Francess central heating had broken down
and she was suffering from hypothermia. She was taken to hospital but died
the next day.
Advise as to any claims by Francess estate.
General remarks
This question was answered by only a small number of candidates and there were
very few good answers. It was primarily concerned with the liability of public
authorities in the exercise of their public law responsibilities. The relevant cases are
mostly drawn from responsibilities towards vulnerable children, but they can be
applied by analogy to the vulnerable elderly.
Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to
use
X v Bedfordshire, D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust and similar cases on
responsibilities of social workers, etc. Barrett v Enfield LBC and other cases on
assumption of responsibility. Cases such as Kent v Griffiths on failures by
emergency services to respond to calls.
A good answer to this question would
have devoted considerable time to the special position of the local council. To what
extent can they be liable in respect of their original decision that Frances could be
looked after in her own home and did not need to be given sheltered
accommodation? (Cf cases leaving children with abusive carers rather than taking
them into the care of the local council.) Alternatively, could Frances estate argue
that there was a breach of her rights under the European Convention on Human
Rights (Article 3) and, if so, what remedy might they get? A substantial proportion of
the answer should have dealt with this. Even if they were not liable for the initial
decision, they had assumed responsibility for her. Had they then broken their duty
towards her by any of these: (i) failing to respond to the first alarm, (ii) sending an
unqualified person, (iii) giving that person unclear instructions, (iv) brushing Gwens
concerns aside? Alternatively, was Inges failure to reach Frances negligent? There
are similarities to Kent v Griffiths but in the problem there had never been an
express undertaking that assistance was on its way.
Poor answers to this question
wholly ignored or gave only brief reference to the special problems in relation to
public authorities such as local councils.
Question 5
Algy took his car to the Do-U-Down Garage for its annual service in March
2013. Until September 2012 he had worked as a sales assistant at the garage
but had left when he had a chance to go touring with a rock group. There is a
notice in the reception area reading: Customers must remain in the reception
area. Cars will be brought to the forecourt by one of our mechanics. It is
possible to access the workshop from a door behind the reception desk. On
that door there is a sign saying: Garage staff only. No unauthorised
admission. When Algy returned to collect his car, he went behind the desk,
chatted to Brenda, the receptionist, and went through the door into the
workshop. His car had been raised on a mechanical ramp and a mechanic,
Chris, was working on it. Chris called Algy over and pointed out problems on
the underside of the car that would soon need attention. At that point the
ramp collapsed and both Algys legs were severed. Algys girlfriend, Delia,
was waiting in the reception area. She heard Algys screams and ran into the
workshop. She slipped on a patch of oil on the floor and fell, causing herself
serious head injuries.
An examination has now shown that a concealed part of the ramp had
become corroded. Do-u-Down Garage had the ramp inspected annually by
Goeasy Ltd, who reported no faults when it carried out an examination in
December 2012. Goeasy Ltd is now out of business.
Advise Algy and Delia as to any claims against Do-U-Down Garage.
General remarks
This problem concerns the liability of occupiers. It is necessary to consider first
whether Algy is or is not a lawful visitor and then to consider the relevant statutory
provisions on each assumption. Then the same process has to be carried out with
Delia.
Common errors
A common mistake was to lose sight of which of the two Acts the candidate was
discussing at any one time. For example, to discuss a provision of the 1957 Act
when they were considering Algys position if he were a trespasser.
Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to
use
Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 (with particular reference to s.2(4)(b) of the
former and s.1(3) of the latter. Illustrative cases in relation to the Acts and to the
position of rescuers.
A good answer to this question would
have carefully considered the position of Algy. On the face of it he is a trespasser
when he enters the workshop despite the notice. But he can probably argue that he
was a lawful visitor on the basis (a) (doubtful) that he was an ex-employee and
therefore used to entering the workshop or (b) that his entry was in fact authorised
by Brenda or, more plausibly, by Chris. If so, then the elements of the 1957 Act
must be considered, particularly the argument that, if the state of the ramp was a
danger, the occupiers had discharged their duty by employing independent
contractors, Goeasy Ltd. If he were a trespasser, his presence was certainly known
but did the occupiers know or have means of knowledge of the danger and had they
taken reasonable care of his safety. The danger that came to pass for Delia was not
the ramp, but the patch of oil. Is a patch of oil on the floor of a garage workshop a
danger that suggests negligence? Was Delia as a rescuer of her boyfriend a lawful
visitor?
Poor answers to this question
demonstrated a number of problems. One is mentioned under common mistakes.
Another was to spend a lot of time discussing possible negligence of Chris but
how was he negligent in inviting Algy to inspect his car? He had presumably no
knowledge of any danger since he had been working under it. Another was a
muddle about the significance of the notice (see the extract and commentary
below).
Student extract
Furthermore s 2(4) (a) deals with the issue of warning (Roles v Nathan).
Although warnings were written there on notice board but the question arise
that can such warnings be treated as sufficient to exclude liability. But point is
warnings are never meant to exclude liability but to limit the liability.
Furthermore warning was for not entering into premises which was most
probably impliedly granted by the staff. Therefore Du-u-Down whose
employee is staff may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of
employees.
Comment on extract
This is a very weak answer. First, it is not easy to follow the argument. Second, it
seems to confuse three things in relation to the notices. The notice here has only
one purpose, namely to make it clear that entry is forbidden, and that anyone who
enters the workshop is a trespasser. It does not purport to give any warning of any
danger at all, let alone the relevant danger the state of the ramp. It does not
attempt to exclude liability at all, but merely to ensure that an unauthorised entrants
rights are those arising under the 1984 rather than the 1957 Act. In any case,
although as stated a warning does not attempt to exclude liability, it does not limit
liability either. On the contrary it attempts to ensure performance of the occupiers
duty by enabling the visitor to avoid the danger and be reasonably safe. (This
confusion about the significance of the notice was present in a great many answers,
which referred to the notice as a warning notice: see the discussion in the subject
guide at Section 6.2.b and associated feedback.)
Question 6
Explain what is meant by pure economic loss and critically examine the
circumstances in which English law allows recovery for negligently inflicted
pure economic loss.
General remarks
This requires a brief definition of pure economic loss (with the focus on pure) as
opposed to consequential loss. Candidates should then focus on situations where it
may be recoverable, including negligent mis-statements, the extended Hedley
Byrne principle, the notion of assumption of responsibility and its relation to the
Caparo v Dickman principles. They should include some illustrative examples.
Ideally they should also include some critical commentary as to whether the law as
stated is coherent.
Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to
use
The principal cases would be Spartan Steel v Martin, Hedley Byrne v Heller, White
v Jones, Henderson v Merrett Syndicates, Commissioners of Customs and Excise v
Barclays Bank.
Common errors
A common error was to ignore the first part of the question or to give a rather
garbled account. Pure economic loss is economic loss that does not arise from
physical damage to the claimants own person or property. It arises either without
physical damage to person or property at all or from damage to the person or
property of someone other than the claimant.
Question 7
Phoebe is one of ten general medical practitioners who practise at a surgery
in Bodkin Street in Slumtown. A number of relatives contacted Rachel, the
medical correspondent of the local newspaper, the Slumtown Gazette, with
concerns about the deaths of patients at the surgery. Rachel investigated the
matter. She did not directly contact the practice, but did speak to the local
National Health Service trust. A spokeswoman for the trust told her that they
had no particular reason to be suspicious of the quality of care offered by the
Bodkin Street practice. Rachel wrote an article published in the Slumtown
Gazette in which she said that there appeared to be shortcomings in the care
offered at Bodkin and that the NHS Trust had not been able to offer
reassurance. The Slumtown Gazette is one of a syndicate of local newspapers
and a version of Rachels article appears in some other local newspapers.
Shane was convinced that his mother had died as the result of the treatment
she had received at the practice. She had left Phoebe a small legacy in her
will. He had a number of leaflets printed reading: Bodkin Street Surgery. If
you want the real Bodkin treatment, go to Bodkin Street and you will never
look back. [Dr Bodkin Adams was a doctor who was acquitted in 1957 of the
murder of a patient. A number of patients had died and had left legacies to
him.] He left a number of these leaflets among other material on a display
desk at the Slumtown Citizens Advice Bureau. The display desk is checked
every three weeks. When Shanes leaflets were found, they were removed. It
is not known how long they were there or whether anyone had read them.
Advise Phoebe as to any claims in defamation.
General remarks
Candidates were advised beforehand to answer on the assumption either that the
Defamation Act 2013 was in force or that it was not in force. Most preferred to
answer on the latter basis, but there were a few excellent answers on the basis of
the 2013 Act that showed a good understanding and included references to
commentaries on the Act about how it might be interpreted. In any case a number
of issues raised by the problem would be answered in the same way whether the
Act was in force or not.
Law cases, reports and other references the Examiners would expect you to
use
Defamation Act 2013 (if relied on), Defamation Act 1996 s.1. Knupfer v London
Express Newspaper Co, Reynolds v Times Newspapers and subsequent cases.
Byrne v Deane.
Common errors
The commonest error was to consider an action by Dr Bodkin Adams. The
instructions clearly said to advise Phoebe and nobody else. (Dr Bodkin Adams in
fact died in 1983 at the age of 84 and could not sue. His case R v Adams is
reported at [1957] Crim LR 365. Candidates were of course not expected to
remember that.)
A good answer to this question would
have concentrated in relation to the first claim on reference to the claimant (group
libel) and on available defences, particularly fair comment or honest opinion and
Reynolds privilege or their replacements under the 2013 Act. The observation about
shortcomings appears at first sight to be a statement of fact but, if Rachel had
referred in her article to statistics about deaths, it could be treated as a comment on
those facts. See the Student extract below on the other defences. An excellent
answer might consider whether publishers of the other local newspapers could also
rely on the Reynolds (or statutory) defence. In the second claim the issue of group
libel arises again (but Phoebe might be more easily identified here because she had
received a legacy from a deceased patient), but a greater problem is whether the
words are defamatory. The essence is captured very neatly in the Student extract
below. Would it be necessary to prove that readers of the leaflet knew about Dr
Bodkin Adams already or is it enough that readers could easily identify the
reference through the internet? Also the words are ambiguous: do they mean that
you will never look back because you will be dead or because you will never be ill
again? The liability of the CAB as publishers must also be explored. What steps
should they take to check on and if necessary remove literature that is put on their
display desk by outsiders?
Poor answers to this question
The commonest failing was to concentrate only on the liability of Rachel and of
Shane. This was not in itself wrong but led candidates to ignore certain issues. In
practice Phoebe would want to sue the newspapers and the CAB as being more
likely to have resources to meet the claims. Both the Slumtown Gazette and other
local newspapers are publishers of her article: the CAB likewise could be publishers
(see Byrne v Deane) but might have a defence. Other poor answers spent too much
time on matters that could not be in dispute (e.g. whether Rachels article was
defamatory and whether it was published).
Student extract
This candidate chose to write on the assumption that the 2013 Act was in force at
the time. The answer stated in respect of the claim against Rachel:
Rs most powerful defence lies in s4 DA 2013 responsible publication on a
matter of public interest replacing the common law Reynolds defence. S
4(1) states that it is a defence if R reasonably believes that the statement
published is a matter of public interest. Public interest is not defined in DA
2013 to allow judicial flexibility. Insight can be drawn from London Artists v
Littler whereby Lord Denning said that such a matter was one which the
public would have a legitimate interest to know. It is submitted that the quality
of medical service should satisfy this requirement.
The candidate then refers to something which they had read in academic
discussion that s.4 might be easier to satisfy than Reynolds, discusses s.4(2)
(comparing Lord Nicholls in Reynolds) and discusses what the relevant
circumstances might be. The same candidate in dealing with the claim arising out of
the leaflet wrote:
Ss leaflet is an innuendo as per Cassidy v Daily Mirror in the sense that
people with background knowledge would see the sting in the statement. S
was suggesting that, like Dr Bodkin, P had murderous tendency on her
patients for legacies.
Comment on extract
These are very clearly expressed sections from an overall first class answer. The
first quotation is a very good analysis of how s.4 might be used by the courts and
how it might compare to the previous common law. It also showed some familiarity
with public discussion of the new Act. The second quotation identified with great
clarity the issue posed by the leaflet, something which many candidates found very
difficult to deal with.
Question 8
Warhorse plc manufactures defence equipment. In order to meet large orders
for weapons from overseas countries (for which it has export licences) it has
recently had to operate its production lines all through the night at its factory.
This is close to a housing estate on the outskirts of Paxtown. One of the
houses is occupied by Felicity and her autistic teenage son, Gus. Gus is very
distressed by the lights and noise from the factory and is hardly able to sleep.
Felicity is unable to work because she cares for Gus, and has enrolled for an
online distance learning degree programme. Warhorses equipment
frequently interferes with the reception and transmission from her computer.
A group of pacifist protestors has occupied an empty council property
nearby. The council is sympathetic to their objectives and is taking no action
to evict them: indeed it has allowed them to earn some money by installing
equipment to recycle old paper. They receive more paper than they are able to
recycle and a huge quantity of paper is stacked on the property. One very
windy night a large quantity of paper blew away and blocked the drain in
Hildas nearby house. The house was badly flooded.
10
11