Tort Reports 2015 A

Examiners’ reports 2015
LA3001 Law of tort – Zone A
Introduction
Answers to essay questions can be improved by including deeper analysis of
leading cases and attention to scholarly articles.
Common mistakes in examinations are to misinterpret the question and/or not
follow the rubric (for example, despite being told in Question 5 to assume vicarious
liability on the part of the health authority, many candidates discussed vicarious
liability at length). These errors are hard to eliminate because they are often the
result of candidates’ reactions to time pressure. However, some greater effort could
be given to tutoring candidates on the way they approach their answers.
For scripts that scored low marks for reasons other than lack of basic knowledge of
legal principle, weaknesses were the result of devoting too much time either to a
restatement of the facts in the question and /or a detailed recital of the facts of a
case. Although these answers may have demonstrated knowledge of the issues
and identified some relevant authority, they lacked focus or a sufficiently detailed
analysis.
Comments on specific questions

Question 1
‘The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) is simply one aspect of the general tort
of nuisance.’
Discuss.
General remarks
The question posed here is a fairly familiar one about where the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher sits within the general scheme of tort.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to
use
Rylands v Fletcher (1868); Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc
(1994); Transco Plc v Stockport MBC (2003).
Common errors
Writing a basic case note of Rylands v Fletcher. Failing to give sufficient account to
cases that examine the relation between Rylands and nuisance, notably the
Cambridge Water case. Failing to contextualize the answer within debates around
the nature of liability, especially the importance of strict liability.
1
LA3001 Law of tort
A good answer to this question would…

demonstrate a good understanding of the development of the Rylands tort without
devoting too much time to a description of the case. Answers that gained strong
marks were able to examine the ways in which, increasingly, the rule is drawn into a
relation with the tort of nuisance – specifically drawing on discussion of the
requirement of fault /foreseeability of harm in cases such as Cambridge Water.
Student extract
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is definitely simply one aspect of the general
tort of nuisance. In fact the rule can be defined as a subset of the law of
private nuisance which in itself deals with the unlawful interference with the
use and enjoyment of land or with some right over or in relation to it. The rule
in Rylkands v Fletcher has been developed from the case of Rylands itself
where the claimant employed contractors to build a reservoir on his land to
supply water to his mill. The contractors had found some passages but did not
realise that this was in fact connected to mine and when the reservoir was
filled, the defendant’s mine was flooded. From there began the rule. There is
also one more aspect of the general tort of nuisance – that is public nuisance.
Comment on extract
This is an example of the kind of approach to an essay question that would receive
a bare pass/third class mark. It consists largely of a very basic case note (with
insufficient attention to legal principle and too much factual detail) and touches on
the examination question only tangentially – mainly by repeating the proposition in
the question (relation between Rylands and nuisance) without setting out a
reasoned argument or deploying cases post-Rylands that demonstrate the
connection with nuisance that the answers asserts.
Question 2
‘Tort law has failed to keep pace with modern ways and means of transmitting
defamatory statements.’
Discuss.
General remarks
The core of this question is on the requirement of publication of a defamatory
statement and the extent to which the legal requirement is challenged by
developments in communication, such as social media.
use
Defamation Act 1996, s.1; Defamation Act 2013, especially s.5; Theaker v
Richardson (1962); Huth v Huth (1915); Loutchansky v Times Newspapers (No 2)
(2001); Tamiz v Google Inc (2013); McAlpine v Bercow (2013); Godfrey v Demon
Internet (2001).
Common errors
Insufficient focus on the theme of publication. Over-reliance on provisions of the
2013 Act, without illustrative case law.
demonstrate a good understanding of the principles governing publication and the
ways in which the traditional rules are challenged by changes in modes of
communication, especially internet and social media. A good answer would be
familiar with at least one of the contemporary decisions on publication, such as
Tamiz v Google (2013), and would address the question of modern day
communication to the issue of defences – specifically to the defence of innocent
2
dissemination in the context of s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996 as developed

through s.5 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Poor answers to this question…
did very little other than providing a general account of the requirements of the tort
of defamation, and the key achievements of the 2013 Act. As is often the case,
these failed to focus on the key issues in the question.
Question 3
Critically assess justifications for strict liability, drawing on the law governing
liability for defective products to illustrate your position.
General remarks
The question invites you to examine the CPA 1987 as an example of the need for
strict liability torts. Answers which discuss common law principles – other than by
way of introduction – would be penalised.
use
CPA 1987, especially ss.3 and 4; Directive 85/374 EEC; A v National Blood
Authority (2001).
Common errors
Failing to use case law (A v National Blood Authority) to elaborate the
meaning/scope of strict liability; absence of European background context; mere
summary of the CPA 1987 provisions; general account of product liability, with too
great a focus on the common law.
provide an analysis of how strict liability works and the justifications for strict liability
regimes, drawing on A v National Blood Authority. Strong answers would also
explain the development of the CPA 1987 from the 1985 European Directive.
relied too heavily on text of the CPA 1987, leading to answers that were little more
than demonstrations of basic comprehension skills. These answers did not explain
consumer protection legislation within the broader regime of strict liability.
Question 4
The Supreme Court decision in Woodland v Essex County Council (2013) has
the potential to radically extend the duty of care on local authorities in
respect of children under their care.
Discuss.
General remarks
The question requires you to explore how the Woodland case extends the common
law notion of a non-delegable duty of care. You would be expected to display a
thorough knowledge of Woodland, especially the judgment of Lord Sumption.
use
Woodland (2013); Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English (1938) (optional).
Common errors
Weak understanding of the case; failure to understand the concept of a non-
delegable duty; failure to distinguish non-delegable duties from vicarious liability;
confusion with issues relating to duty of care on public bodies more generally (e.g.
just, fair and reasonable element of the Caparo test).
3
LA3001 Law of tort

demonstrate a good understanding of the judgments in the case and its context in
terms of outsourcing of public functions. Strong answers would comment on Lord
Sumption’s 5-stage test.
Strong answers could also relate the case to the context of employee/employer
non-delegable duties – showing understanding of incremental development of the
law.
offered no more than a factual account of the case; showed confusion between
non-delegable duties and vicarious liability; gave a general account of the duty of
care test in relation to public bodies.
Question 5
Dexter was a 17-year-old boy who was sentenced to three years at a youth
offenders institute (a prison for young people) having been convicted of
burglary and violent robbery. The institute is called Begin Again. Dexter has a
history of self-harming and of suicide attempts. Despite repeated requests
from his family and his GP, Begin Again refuse to place Dexter on suicide
watch – claiming that it is short of staff and has a limited budget for
replacement staff. Sadly, just three weeks into his sentence, Dexter took an
overdose of sleeping tablets and slashed his wrists. He was taken
immediately by ambulance to the local hospital where he was treated for his
slashed wrists by Sally, the doctor on call, but no other medical examination
was carried out on Dexter. Dexter was recovering from his wrist injuries but
died two days later of the overdose.
Advise Begin Again and Sally of their liability in negligence to Dexter’s estate.
Assume that the Area Health Authority is vicariously liable for Sally if she is
in breach of a duty of care.
General remarks
The core issues are:
 just, fair and reasonable element of the duty of care
 standard of care
 causation (nova causa).
use
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989); Reeves v Commissioner of Police
of the Metropolis (2001); Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management
Committee (1969); Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957).
Common errors
Failing to identify the just, fair and reasonable issue and focusing only on breach
and causation or (even worse) a general account of negligence – including duty –
without addressing the duty question in the context of public bodies.
address the duty issues but use Reeves as illustration that a duty would likely be
found. Answers that consider whether Begin Again could escape a duty of care for
Dexter’s injuries on the Hill principle would gain credit – even where the answer
takes Hill to its logical conclusion and determines no duty. The line of reasoning that
would gain most credit would suggest that a duty would be owed – Reeves is
directly relevant to the case of self-harm/suicide. Stronger answers would consider
4
whether the intervening medical examination broke the chain of causation between
Begin Again’s negligence and Dexter’s eventual death – having taken account of
the fact that negligent treatment is unlikely to amount to a nova causa.
tended to place too much (or all) emphasis on breach. Although the breach issue
was generally dealt with well – the majority concluding that Sally will be unlikely to
show that she has reached the standard imposed under Bolam, this aspect of
negligence was relied upon too much in weaker answers. Most answers picked up
on the fact that the case of Barnett can be used to support the argument that what
appears to be a cursory examination would not accord with the actions of a
reasonable, competent and careful medical practitioner.
Question 6
Robert and Maria decided to hire a caravan on a holiday for a two-week
period, accompanied by their daughter (Felicity) and son (Jesse). The caravan
site (owned and maintained by Holiday Caravans UK Ltd) was advertised as
an ideal location for children. The first three days of the holiday were without
incident, but tragedy struck on the fourth day. Felicity and Jesse went to a
more secluded part of the caravan site and climbed over a low fence on which
was placed a notice saying: “Keep out. Danger.” Once on the other side,
Jesse saw some berry trees and began to eat some of the berries. Soon after,
Jesse began to feel very unwell and Felicity took him back to the caravan.
Robert and Maria had returned from their lunch and Maria decided to give
Jesse a bath and put him to bed to rest and recover from what she believed
was the effects of eating too many berries. Maria knew that the hot taps on
the bath were defective but did not realise how serious the fault was. The hot
water spurted out and Maria was badly scalded. Jesse died during his sleep
and it was discovered that the fruit which he consumed was poisonous.
Advise all parties as to their rights and liabilities under the Occupiers’
Liability Acts 1957 and 1984.
General remarks
The question revolves around the OLA 1957 and 1984, with emphasis on the duty
owed to child visitors/trespassers.
use
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, ss.1 and 2; Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, s.1;
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003); Darby v National Trust (2001);
Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955); Simkiss v Rhondda BC (1983); Jolley v
Sutton LBC (2000); Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966).
Common errors
Failure to give attention to Maria’s (mother’s) actions; failure to clearly distinguish
when/if the 1984 Act is applicable to the child’s situation.
provide a convincing account of the status of Jessie in respect of the berries –
taking account of the concept of allurement which is likely to suggest that he falls
under the 1957 Act and not the 1984 Act. Good answers would acknowledge the
lack of clarity in the question and argue Jessie’s position should be considered
under both Acts, noting – in the context of the 1957 Act – that the warning may not
be sufficient, given the ease of access to the field of poisonous berries. The case of
Simkiss could be used to argue that the parents should not have left the children
unattended. Good answers would also pick up on the point that it is not clear that
5
LA3001 Law of tort
Maria was careful in her assessment of Jessie’s situation. Finally, good answers
would discuss whether the caravan constitutes premises for the purposes of the
OLAs, and conclude that it did.
tended to rely too heavily on the text of the OLAs and demonstrated little knowledge
of case law. These answers also tended not to make sufficiently clear when the
1957 or 1984 Act would be engaged.
Question 7
Hasan and Devla both inherited £90,000 from their recently deceased parents.
Hasan decided to invest his money in a country house retreat and Devla
decided to invest in shares. Devla’s best friend (Edward) was a financial
adviser and during a drinks party advised Devla to invest in a company (JOY
UK) which organised children’s parties. Devla was very interested in the
prospect but wanted to check the company’s audited accounts before making
a final investment decision. The audited accounts showed a healthy profit and
so Devla invested £40,000. Unfortunately, the audited accounts had been
prepared by an accountant (Ponsonby) who was dismissed for professional
negligence. Hasan’s attractive country cottage was found to have been built
on insecure foundations and is now subject to a defect which poses an
imminent threat to his health and safety.
Devla lost the full amount of her investment and Hasan has been advised that
he must spend £20,000 to cure the defects in the property.
Advise all parties as to their rights and liabilities in respect of Devla and
Hasan’s pure economic losses.
General remarks
The question requires knowledge and application of the principles governing pure
economic losses resulting from negligent acts and negligent misstatements.
use
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (1973); Anns v Merton
LBC (1978); Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991); Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller
Partners (1963); Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman (1990); Chaudhry v Prabhakar
(1989).
Common errors
Ignoring or dealing inadequately with the Anns/Murphy line of authority on liability
for pure economic losses resulting from defective premises.
recognise that Hasan’s situation is almost identical to the case of Anns and thus
that the solution falls within Murphy v Brentwood, concluding that Hasan would not
be able to recover for his financial losses.
Good answers would also identify that Devla’s situation raises the more substantial
questions concerning duty of care in cases of pure economic loss. Good answers
would demonstrate a strong understanding of the Hedley/Caparo test and conclude
that Edward clearly had knowledge of the purposes for which his statement would
be used but the statement was made in a social setting in circumstances in relation
to which Chaudhry is unlikely to apply. Moreover, Devla appears not to have relied
upon Edward’s advice and the issue concerning the audited accounts falls solidly
within the Caparo situation – the accounts not being prepared for the purposes of
making investment decisions.
6

tended to cover reasonably well the issue of statements resulting in pure economic
loss but failed to address, or address adequately, negligent acts.
Student extract
In the case of Hasan he seems to have also suffered an economic loss.
According to Spartan Steel v Martin, economic loss is not attainable unless it
is based on damage to property or damage to self. Hasan’s loss seems to be
based on a defect in the property. This is not based on damage to himself or
the property. According to Anns v Merton Borough Council, he would have
had a claim but this was overruled in the case of Murphy v Brentwood District
Council. Hence, according to this case he would not have a claim. He would
have to seek redress from the defectives premises act, contract law or his
insurers.
Comment on extract
This extract demonstrates a good understanding of the important distinction
between damage and a defect and the author is clearly familiar with the line of
authority from Anns through to Murphy. This is also a well-written summary, which
condenses the core principles in a clear and succinct manner. Credit would have
been received for the concluding sentence which demonstrates an excellent
understanding of how tort principles intersect with other sectors of liability.
Question 8
Henry and Jancis own a country house with large gardens. They held a party
for around 50 guests. Henry was late getting ready for the party and left a
burning cigarette in his bedroom before going out in the garden to join Jancis
and some of the guests. The party was going very well indeed until a fire
broke out in Henry’s bedroom. The fire quickly took hold and Henry’s best
friend, Michael, narrowly escaped injury when a beam fell from the ceiling
support. The incident triggered a latent psychiatric condition and now
Michael suffers from recurring nightmares and can no longer hold down
employment. Several guests died in the fire and one of the firefighters
(Tamsin) suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of seeing the
charred bodies. Jancis was at no point in danger of physical harm but he
suffered shock after witnessing the house burn to the ground.
Advise all parties on any claims in negligence. Do not advise in relation to the
Occupiers’ Liability Acts.
General remarks
This was a very straightforward problem scenario on recovery of damages for
negligence resulting in nervous shock (psychiatric injury).
use
McLoughlin v O’Brian (1982); Page v Smith (1996); Alcock v Chief Constable of
South Yorkshire (1992); White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1999); Attia v
British Gas (1988).
Common errors
Missing the Attia v British Gas point. There was also a tendency to deal
inadequately with the situation of rescuers and the implications of White.
7
LA3001 Law of tort

identify all key issues. In general, strong answers would demonstrate a good level
of knowledge of the Page and Alcock decisions and tests for recovery. Specifically,
strong answers would cover all of the following: Michael’s situation is similar to that
of the claimant in Page v Smith; Tamsin falls within the principle in White and is
unlikely to recover – given that there is no evidence that she was exposed to harm;
Jerome will be able to recover on the principle of Attia v British Gas.
tended not to use supporting authority to illustrate claims and did not draw sharply
enough the distinction between primary and secondary victims.
Student extract
Tamsin would be liable to claim if he suffered from a recognized psychiatric
condition. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a recognized psychiatric illness,
hence he would be liable to claim (Reilly v Merseyside). However, is he a
primary or secondary victim? From the scenario, it is not evident he placed
himself in harm’s way, hence he cannot claim as a rescuer (White v Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire). It is stated he developed his condition from
seeing the charred bodies so he would have to claim as a secondary victim.
Being a firefighter does not automatically make one a primary victim. He has
to prove he was in harm’s way.
To claim as a secondary victim the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of West
Yorkshire provides the elements of proof. The elements of reasonable
foreseeability is to be established as it would have been foreseeable that a
reasonable man of normal phlegm and fortitude would have developed his
condition. He would also have to prove he was in a close and loving
relationship with the victims (McLoughlin v Obrien). This he may have
difficulty proving as it is not evident from the scenario…
Comment on extract
This is a clear and well supported answer on the position of rescuers. The answer
deploys the most relevant authorities, shows a clear appreciation of the criteria for
primary and secondary victim status and deals very well with the application of
Alcock to claimants who are seeking status as secondary victims following rescue
attempts.
Question 9
John and Nigel are leaders of two rival gangs who both inhabit the
neighbourhood of Webchester. After several small incidents of violence and
intimidation between them the gangs decided to meet on a Saturday night to
engage in a fight that was intended to determine which one of the two groups
would remain in Webchester. In time honoured tradition, the fight began with
the gang leaders. However, unknown to John, Nigel had a knife and John was
so severely injured that he will require full time nursing care for the rest of his
life. The stabbing was witnessed by Fred and Pete, two members of Nigel’s
gang. In fear for his life, Fred ran across an unattended railway crossing and
was killed by a train. The train driver had fallen asleep at the controls and
crossed a red light. Nigel locked the other gang member (Pete) in an unused
shed. Nigel told Pete that he (Pete) would remain in the shed until he
promised not to inform the police of the stabbing. Pete, who suffered from a
fear of enclosed spaces, injured his hands by smashing through the glass in
an effort to escape the confines of the shed.
8
Advise all parties on their rights and obligations in respect of the intentional
torts and negligence and any defences that might be raised to defeat an
action in negligence.
General remarks
The question expressly requires analysis of relevant defences but answers should
also display a good appreciation of relevant causes of action and the general rules
on negligence.
use
Law Reform Contributory Negligence Act 1945; Pitts v Hunt (1991); Sayers v
Harlow (1958); Ashton v Turner (1981); Bird v Jones (1954); Austin v Commissioner
of Police (2009); Joyce v O’Brien (2013); Hicks v Young (2015).
Common errors
Failing to focus on defences/focusing instead on general issues of negligence – too
much on duty/breach – matters not much in dispute.
Poor identification of causes of actions – as if everything must be forced into the
framework of negligence.
accurately identify relevant causes of action in respect of John, Fred and Pete’s
injuries and demonstrate basic knowledge of the requirements of trespass to person
and negligence. Strong answers would identify all or most of the following:
 John is unlikely to recover for his battery because of the ex turpi defence –
the case is not dissimilar to Ashton v Turner.
 Fred would be able to make out liability for false imprisonment but on the
basis of Sayers v Harlow may be found to have contributed to his injuries –
as a result of his escape.
 A strong answer would consider the applicability of Pitts v Hunt – given both
Nigel and Pete were involved in the gang and relevant associated activities.
 As far as Fred is concerned, you should briefly address duty of care and
breach of duty of the train driver. It is unlikely that there would be a
sufficiently strong causal connection between Fred’s wrongdoing and his
injuries to sustain the ex turpi defence and no evidence of contributory
negligence on Fred’s part either.
Failed to read the question properly and so failed to focus on defences. Where
defences were used, the tendency was to over-use contributory negligence and to
pay insufficient attention to ex turpi.
Question 10
Rentavehicle is a large taxi hire firm with a broad-based clientele, including
business customers. The Managing Director (Gillian) has consulted you over
two recent incidents. First, one of the taxi drivers (Nicholas) allowed a driver
from another taxi firm to use his (Nicholas’s) taxi between 6pm and 12pm on
a Friday night. During that period, a young woman (Pamela) who was picked
up in Nicholas’s taxi suffered a serious sexual assault. The perpetrator of the
assault has been identified as the person to whom Nicholas loaned the taxi.
His name was Mitchell and he has since been arrested. The second incident
concerned a longstanding business client (Troy) was driven to the airport by
one of the drivers (Helen). During the drive, Troy asked Helen whether she
9
LA3001 Law of tort
could stop the taxi outside a restaurant and purchase a takeaway hot meal for
him. Troy told Helen that he was allergic to nuts and that, on no account
could the meal contain nuts. Helen was anxious to help Troy because he
brought a lot of business to the taxi firm but she was also concerned that she
was illegally parked. Helen completely forgot to inform the waiter of Troy’s
nut allergy. The meal did contain nuts and Troy suffered a severe allergic
reaction and died.
Advise Rentavehicle as regards its liability in respect of Troy’s death and
Pamela’s assault.
General remarks
This question is about vicarious liability, with emphasis on course of employment
but strong answers would not ignore the questions around employee status posed
by Nicholas’ position.
use
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2002); Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
(1968); Rose v Plenty (1976); Twine v Bean’s Express (1945); Various Claimants v
Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012).
Common errors
Failing to address employee status in relation to taxi drivers; failing to assess
Nicholas’ actions in loaning the taxi in the context of course of employment.
analyse Pamela’s situation in light of the Lister test. A straight application of the
Lister test would seem to yield a negative answer – it is hard to see how there could
be said to be a close connection between the assault and the work of a taxi driver –
the loan of the car merely gave Mitchell the opportunity to commit the assault and,
according to Lister, mere opportunity is insufficient. Mitchell is not an employee
(even the expanded notion of employee in the Catholic Child case would not affect
his position) and good answers would assess instead Nicholas’ status and the
status of his act of loaning the vehicle. Good answers would also address the issue
of employment status – given that Nicholas was loaned the car.
Strong answers would also argue that Helen was probably acting outside the
course of her employment -– the role of taxi driver not being connected with
ordering meals – Rose v Plenty is distinguishable because the boy trespasser was
still delivering milk.
Although the tort of negligence is the key aspect covered in the course, vicarious
liability crosses the spectrum of torts and in such questions candidates should be
prepared to see other torts, such as trespass to the person. Too many answers
were compromised because candidates sought to strain the facts of the problem
scenario within the frame of the tort of negligence – this worked for Troy but not for
Pamela.
10

Tort Reports 2015 A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tort Reports 2015 A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examiners’ reports 2015

Examiners’ reports 2015

LA3001 Law of tort – Zone A

Comments on specific questions

A good answer to this question would…

dissemination in the context of s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996 as developed

A good answer to this question would…

Poor answers to this question…

A good answer to this question would…

You might also like