Tort Exam Scenarios

Tort Exam Scenarios

Q1A Wormwood

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

1. Trunchable ; as primary health professional to a adult female who died in similar fortunes as the ulterior slaying victim, she is likely apt for unlawful decease of Wormwood

2. GMH is exposed to four possible causes of action:

1 ) Vicarious liability for the actions of Trunchable ( employer ‘consent and control’ Mersey Docks [ 1947 ] AC 1 ; general rules inViasystems[ 2005 ] EWCA Civ 1151 )

2 ) Breach of responsibility in failure to decently oversee Trunchable

3 ) Contractual liability for failure to supply contemplated nursing services to Wormwood

4 ) Failure to move on Sophie’s repeated ailments

Evidences ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) are more likely than ( 3 ) , as the GMH had specifically considered the properness of the injections.

3. Manchester Police ; failure to quickly look into. Police work involves opinions that can non be inhibited by the menace of legal action. (Hill[ 1988 ] QB 60 ( CA ) )

4. MSRA ; this bacterium is a good known infirmary danger ; the liability of the GMH would turn on its patterns and processs to reasonably protect ( non warrant ) patients from exposure.

Q1B M25 Motor vehicle accident

  1. Microphone may keep the assorted causes of action noted below. Mike’s driving can non represent contributory carelessness.
  2. Veruca ( estate ) may keep

( 1 ) a unlawful decease claim against the lorry driver and the lorry proprietor ( vicarious liability rules ) for negligent operation of the lorry.

( 2 ) against the fire forces ( and its public authorization ) for both carelessness and breach of statutory responsibility in the attempted extraction ; deliverance forces have ( a ) a positive responsibility to adhere to pattern criterions ( B ) a responsibility to non do affairs worse (Kent[ 1940 ] 1 KP 319 )

3. Dr. Salt ; no legal duty to help ; Dr. Gloop, ‘Good Samaritan’ , he discharged his medical responsibility to move moderately (Powell( 1997 ) 39 BMLR 35 ; Deakin,Tort Law( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999 ) @ 273 )

  1. Principle of allotment between the assorted suspects ( general rules atBaker[ 1970 ] AC 467,Rahman[ 2001 ] QB 351 )
  2. Ambulance ; causal relationship between hold and subsequent hurts. Liability of ambulance bends on cogent evidence of negligent hold versus ‘best efforts’ to go to

Q1C Fox Hunt

  1. Burgo ; duty to command his Equus caballus with grasp of ( a ) presence of Hunt protestors ( B ) likely effects of directing the Equus caballus towards Kate. Burgo’s actions constitute trespass, assault, or instead negligent handling, in response to Kate’s aggravation. (Wooldridge[ 1963 ] 2 QB 43

Burgo’s hurts are wholly attributable to his ain actions.

2. The Maestro of the Hounds et Al ; Burgo’s actions are beyond the range of the Hunt ; no vicarious liability attaches.

  1. Kate ; conducive carelessness ( a ) aggravation of Burgo will non represent contributory carelessness (Lane[ 1969 ] 1 QB 379 ) , but ( B ) puting herself in place of hazard may be contributory.
  2. George, Alice ; mental hurt as ‘secondary victims’ ; theirs is acute emotional injury versus heartache, causally connected to Burgo’s actions (Page[ 1996 ] AC 155,189,Hunter[ 1998 ] EWCA Civ 205 ) .
  3. Kate’s parents ; secondary victims with restrictions noted above (Fatal Accidents Act, 1976,Administration of Justice Act1982, s. 3 )
  4. Kate’s fiance ; issues of forseeability and farness in the causal concatenation would deny his claim (Alcock1992 ] 1 AC 310,Hunter, supra. )

Q1D Airplane clang

  1. Horatio, Barnaby – exposure to physical hazards at scene renders them primary victims entitled to claim versus maker (Chadwick[ 1967 ] 1 WLR 912 )
  2. Mental agony moderately foreseeable – if a faulty plane clangs, there will be slaughter witnessed by a civilian savior.( Page, supra )
  3. Monica ( and other riders ) – unlawful decease claims due to carelessness of maker
  4. Eric – his causes of action are linked to Monica’s decease ( parental relationship ( see Q1C ( 5 ) above ) and the effects of his vigil ; causal connexion to the accident scene (McLoughlin[ 1983 ] AC 410,Alcock, supra )
  5. Jason – brief period of belief due to guiltless constabulary mistake ; ( a ) aeroplane maker has no control over constabularies error ( farness ) ( B ) constabulary acted moderately but erroneously in crisis fortunes (Alcock, supra )
  6. Personal computer Helms ; probably barred byWhite[ 1998 ] 3 WLR 1510 ( Hillsborough bowl catastrophe, but seeYoung[ 1997 ] EWCA Civ 1523 )

Q1E Investment

  1. Investings are inherently bad and incorporate a clear component of hazard. Alan was under no duty to obtain or follow magazine advice. The information was non tendered in assurance nor did Alan bask a fiducial relationship with the magazine. (Hedley Byrne[ 1964 ] AC 465,Caparo[ 1990 ] 2 AC 605, 620, 621 ) .
  2. Alan and Ben are obligated to exert due diligence in their investing attempts. Neither went to any other beginning save the magazine. They each ignored other negative public commentary. Each failed to read the published warning ( ‘warnings’ general rules,Lewis[ 1999 ] EWCA Civ 1569 )

Q1F Warehouse

  1. Two viing watercourses of behavior – Offa used substandard Windowss and no review at purchase ; no negligent deceit to Posh rhenium window quality. Posh failed inspect constructing prior to buy. Each party failed to exert due diligence. Posh has a legitimate outlook that the Windowss are moderately fit for their intended intents.
  1. The Windowss are non new. Offa must pay for existent value replacings, less an allotment of the common failures to inspect (Gran Gelato[ 1992 ] 1 All ER 865 )

Q1G Archers

1. The Archery nine has the undermentioned possible liability:

( a ) Infirm Albert prosecuting in archery with their permission, peculiarly after the first accident occurred

( B ) Failing to take sensible stairss to protect passers-by and witnesss from winging pointers ( seeGoode[ 2001 ] EWCA Civ 2101 )

2. Albert is apt to both Bernie and Tony in carelessness for prosecuting an activity that is inherently unsafe given his frailties, capable to 3 below

3. Bernie is non capable to conducive carelessness considerations as a passerby ; Tony attended an inherently unsafe event ( and he presumptively knows his friend’s restrictions ) ; conducive carelessness through voluntary premise of hazard (Pearson[ 1998 ] EWCA Civ 591 )

4. Extra facts

( a ) Anterior incidents render the nine exposed to greater liability ; willful neglect for proved hazards (Goode, supra )

( 2 ) Failure of nine to mind manufacturer’s warning reduces voluntary premise of hazard defense mechanism in claims between Albert and the nine for his hurt


Q2A Procedure

  1. Gerald advanced the fee on status Mary had the process. If the monies were recovered, Gerald is entitled to their return
  2. a ) Mary was non thorough in her preoperative questions ; she did inquire about hazard. She is entitled to trust upon Dr. Fab ; where no account of the hazards of the process is provided there is no informed consent ( battery )(definition atAllan[ 1980 ] 28 O.R ( 2d ) 356 ) ,

B ) Alternatively, Mary would non hold undergone surgery if all hazards were explained( Chatterton[ 1981 ] QB 432,Richardson( 1998 )The Times, 6 April where consent is vitiated when there is fraud or error as to the nature of the process )

3. In the option to battery, the alternate footing of liability against Fab is the negligent behavior of process ( farther facts required )

Q2B Miles

  1. As a cook, Miles knows that knives are inherently crisp unsafe objects. The absence of a assistant does non change the character of the knife. No vicarious duty exists for the hurt between Miles and Aretha for this ground. With mention to ( 2 ) below, exposure to possible sources from the kitchen are accepted as portion of nutrient readying.
  2. When MSRA was foremost considered as a hazard, Miles was non in immediate hazard –there was clip to obtain Miles’ informed consent re drug B ; necessity or exigency fortunes did non use. The non-consensual disposal of experimental drugs is restricted to medical exigencies where consent non possible.Chatterton,supra,Ellis [ 1990 ] 2 Med. LR 103 ( NSW CA ) . Administration of drug B is a battery in the present fortunes.
  3. Use of drug A was recognized process ; no liability can flux from its disposal
  4. Although battery by virtuousness of drug B is demonstrable, the connexion between Miles’ amendss and battery can non be ascertained without adept grounds rhenium possible drug interactions and tolerances that may besides hold been operative. (Hotson[ 1987 ] 1 All ER 210 ( CA ) [ 1987 ] 2 All ER 909 ( HL ) )

Q2 ( B ) Debbi

  1. Dr. Kill is no longer current in modern medical pattern and may hold failed to dispatch his responsibility to supply sensible advice to Debbi. Remoteness is an issue – Kill’s misdiagnosis is superseded by Live’s appropriate actions ( salvage for observation below ) and the intervening carelessness of x-ray physician. If the x-ray physician proceeded suitably, Debbi would non hold required amputation.
  2. Dr. Live acted moderately ( capable to observation as to what he told the x beam physician ) ; his action counteracted both Kill and x-ray physician ; no causal connexion between Live, misdiagnosis, hold, or amputation.
  3. X-ray physician ; negligent failure to observe symptoms known to medical community ( failure to move on Live’s diagnosing? The facts are non clear ) ; disease could hold been averted ( multiple tort-feasors, seeHerskovits( 1983 ) 99 Wash.2d 609 ; last chance regulation non good jurisprudence )
  4. Debbi has an action in carelessness against x-ray physician ( rawness is non a defense mechanism,Wilsher[ 1987 ] QB 730 )
  5. Step-mother secondary victim of nervous daze as perPage, supra

Q2C Brawl and Bucket

  1. Lie is vicariously responsible to his frequenter for Dump’s larceny for the coat and its contents ( Dump is straight apt ; this reply assumes she may be hard to prosecute ) . Lie may besides be apt on the surrogate land of exposing frequenters to the unusual hazard he created by engaging Dump, enlightened policy or no.
  2. The autumn of the employee wounding the frequenter is besides the vicarious duty of Lie. The frequenter did non presume this type of hazard upon entry. The voluntary nightclub does non change the ultimate duty for frequenter safety ; no grounds of preparation or other steps by Lie sing his performing artists. (c.fDeaton ‘s( 1949 ) 79 CLR 370 – barmaid’s employers were non held responsible for beer she threw at a client ) .
  3. The ‘no show’ set has no causal connexion to the actions of Attracta.
  4. The frequenter did non consent to Attracta falling ; personal hurt and psychological hurts are lawfully recoverable.

Q2D Donner-vans

  1. Aussie’s actions in allowing out the air of Shakey’s new wave are Acts of the Apostless of trespass to personal belongings that are causally connected to the harm caused to the new wave inside. Shakey is apt for this effect.
  2. Shakey’s act of trespass and transition sing Aussie’s boulder clay are freestanding civil wrongs that form the background to the new wave coda.
  3. Shakey’s provoked reaction is coloured by his trespass to Aussie’s new wave and larceny. Shakey’s driving renders him apt for trespass and negligent operation of his new wave. The mitigating factors noted supra do non take away from the willful devastation of Aussie’s belongings. ( seeLane, supra )


  1. Kevin is an guiltless party
  2. Fred provides direction to employee Bill. Fred has both an implied contractual duty and a civil wrong responsibility of attention to maintain Kevin’s auto moderately secure.
  3. Bill breaches ( 2 ) during class of employment.
  4. Bill’s driver action creates legal duties to ( a ) Giles ( B ) Gill for her hurts ( degree Celsius ) Kevin ( vitamin D ) Fred ; breach of the responsibility to Fred to maintain the vehicle secure will render Bill apt to Fred for any liability, direct or vicarious that may be found to be between Fred and Kevin ( rules of part and insurance )
  5. Gill’s failure to have on a place belt is an act of conducive carelessness (Contributory Negligence Act1945,Road Traffic Act1988 s. 15 ) countervailing her claim based upon Bill’s carelessness

Q2F Trespass?

( a ) Boyfriend

1. Rachel’s reaction to her alienated fellow was non the merchandise of his knowing act. There is no suggestion of a history of force between them. The boyfriend ownership of a knife is guiltless in the fortunes and non sufficient to back up a trespass or assault.Fowler[ 1959 ] 1 QB 426

2. Gary’s dropped wrench was careless but non actionable carelessness ; had there been no overreaction by Rachel, hurt would non ensue.

( B ) S/M

1. Graham acts on an honest but misguided belief in person acquiring injured. His apprehensivenesss are ab initio sensible in seeking to forestall bodily injury and hence non a trespass.

2. Graham staying after being informed of the true state of affairs between Alex and Penny is a trespass to their private room

3. Penny can step in to forestall Graham from interfering in the consensual sado-masochistic game ; she uses inordinate force to make so by striking Graham with a hot fire hook and commits the civil wrong of assault (Re F1990 ] 2 AC 1 public policy considerations of consent )

4. If Penny administered hurting in surplus of the sum Alex consented to in the proceeding, her actions sing Alex are assault, and Graham acts legitimately in trying to forestall its continuation.

( degree Celsius ) Presentation

  1. Personal computer is in the evident lawful executing of his responsibilities in directing the marcher. Personal computer has a cardinal responsibility to continue peace and public order.
  2. The marcher’s willful noncompliance of a lawful way from a peace officer provides the officer with the right ( non needfully duty ) to confine or collar the marcher. The discharge of a lawful responsibility is a defense mechanism to a trespass claim. (Police and Criminal Evidence Act1984 )

( vitamin D ) Samaritans

  1. Alfred clearly seeks to render assistance to a individual in evident hurt.
  2. Alfred’s actions were sensible ( non perfect ; he ought to hold contacted the governments instantly ) ; he could hold done nil ( Deakin, 273 )
  3. He is out of the blue struck by the kid
  4. His ‘threat’ was non trespass ; Alfred attempted to turn to an unexpected circumstance in his ‘rescue’ . Alfred’s words were in response to the circumstance merely
  5. Alfred acted moderately

( vitamin E ) Homeowner

  1. Homeowner has an duty to guarantee that the premises are safe ; homeowner’s redress against S superseded by his responsibility rhenium edifice status
  2. 8 twelvemonth old lacks legal capacity to be a intruder ; parental duty for her safety? (Carmarthenshire[ 1956 ] AC 549 )
  3. Homeowner duties do non include bar of hooliganismSmith[ 1987 ] AC 241, 261.

( degree Fahrenheit ) Rockstar

  1. Michael ; hires DSC and is vicariously apt for their security ( including Intruder Alert, attack Canis familiariss ) . He is besides responsible for the actions of his escort.
  2. DSC ; attack Canis familiariss and Intruder Alert are possible ‘man traps’ ; degree of response likely disproportionate to the hazard presented (Hobson[ 1978 ] 1 All ER 945 )
  3. ‘Keep Out’ notices ( seeChristian[ 1956 ] NZLR 664, 666 for reappraisal )
  4. Susan ; trespass to belongings and breach of responsibility of attention to her kid. The child’s hurts are straight attributable to Susan’s carelessness, given her parental position.
  5. Personal computer ; negligence re handling of the guard Canis familiariss, as he is injured by unsafe Canis familiaris while in exercising of responsibilities due to carelessness of Bert, and vicariously, DSC re control of the Canis familiariss.
  6. Paramedic ; similar legal place to Personal computer as he is in lawful executing of responsibility and non a intruder
  7. Bodyguard ; improper decease. Michael’s order to DSC ‘never come in the house’ does non warrant degree of force used, wholly disproportional to the injury represented by Michael’s ain DSC contractors


Q3A Hazards

  1. Georgie’s future purposes do non change her present duty to maintain it moderately secure. Dumping old autos creates a jeopardy to the populace, magnified by propinquity to an country where kids are likely to play, or be attracted to Georgia’s lands. Notices are useless if the marks can non read. Georgia is apt to Dick for this ground. ( ‘allurement philosophy ‘ ,Jolley[ 1998 ] 1 Lloyd ‘s Rep. 433 )
  2. Julian was a intruder and voluntarily assumed a hazard of hurt
  3. Georgie is apt to Quentin for her failure to decently oversee the kid ( she isin loco parentisto Quentin ) on her premises with known hazards

Q3B Pot

  1. Percy obviously permitted the pot nuisance to turn unbridled ; he had every right to cut the workss when they began to turn upon his ain lands and endanger his tulips. A individual must take sensible steps to extenuate their ain losingss, existent and threatened, to forestall the escalation of a nuisance or trespass. (McKinnon[ 1951 ] 3 DIR 577 ;Masters[ 1978 ] QB 841,Caminer[ 1951 ] AC 88 ) . Cream has an action in nuisance for the noise created by Pot and his friends ; it is unreasonable and it is provably riotous.
  2. The emanation of dirty or unattractive people is non actionable ; these individuals may pique the neighbors but they offend no jurisprudence by their presence or visual aspect ( capable to districting ordinances sing assemblies and the obvious criminalism of Pot’s trafficking activities )

Q3C Mishi

  1. Adam ; Mishi’s big guitar gate may represent a nuisance, non for piquing vicinity gustatory sensations, but if it interferes in the lawful enjoyment of another’s belongings.
  2. Orr ; has the evidences for both nuisance due to resound intervention and trespass for the harm caused to his farmhouse.Bernstein of Leigh [1978 ] QB 479.
  3. Dom ; Mishi’s chopper flights and end point are a trespass to his lands. The abortions sustained by his farm animal are potentially actionable in nuisance if the actions of Mishi are beyond what a sensible chopper user would make relative to takeoffs and landings on his ain belongings.

Q3D Dr. Chalk

  1. The facts potentially set up both civil wrongs of libel ( the publication of the missive ) and slander ( the assorted verbal communications about Chalk ) .
  2. Fat is entitled to his sentiment that Chalk is unfit to learn ; Fat’s communicating of incorrect and sensitive information is potentially actionable as both libel and knowing intervention in economic dealingss ( the new occupation )
  3. The Chancellor does non cognize the right information and passes the missive contents along without confirmation from Chalk. The Chancellor slandered Clarke.
  4. Chancellor’s communicating with Chalk’s fiance boundary lines on the malicious ( see loss of matrimony chancesSpeight( 1891 ) 60 LJQB 231 ) .
  5. The facts as communicated about Chalk and the truth is little ( non-consensual sexual intercourse versus non-consensual sexual touching ) ;( See Tolley[ 1930 ] 1 KB 467,Gillick[ 1996 ] , and justificationPrager[ 1988 ] 1 WLR 77 )

Q3E Larry

  1. There is no grounds that Larry is the ‘wild man’ as characterised by Deel. The usage of Larry’s image to attach to the article creates a powerful negative connexion between Larry and the article.Tolley [1931 ] AC 333.
  2. The article defames Larry by deduction ; the subsequent telephone communicating with influential people in the concern constitutes a unlawful intervention in Larry’s economic dealingss.
A child's development is a complex mystery that<< >>Market power, in an economic context, is defined

About the author : admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.