Legal Principles of Tort Final Examination

Hypothetical Questions for External/End Semester Assignment (50 Marks)

Assignment Date: December 12th, 2020 at 8:00 AM
Due Date: December 19th, 2020 at 8:00 PM
Instructions: There are six questions in this examination. You are to answer four of the
questions. Each question will be worth 12.5 marks and you are free to choose any combination
of the questions to answer. Any questions answered beyond the initial four in your submission
will be ignored. The answers to each question should be limited to 1,000 words. Any words
over that limit can result in a lower grade.
Question 1:
Linda and her 12-year-old daughter Molly had moved to Glasgow, UK in August 2020.
Since mother and daughter both loved eating out, they explored the many restaurants and eateries
that the city had to offer.
On Sunday, October 4th, they ate at Nico's, having heard about the “world’s best
hamburgers” being served at there. Nico's was known to serve hamburgers custom cooked to
varying degrees of doneness - medium rare to well done – based on the customer’s request. On
busy weekend evenings, Nico’s usually serves around 50-60 hamburgers every hour. On that
Saturday, Linda and Molly ordered medium rare hamburgers and fries, enjoying their
experience. Molly found the meat in her hamburger to be rare, at best, but she did not complain
and ate the burger anyway.
On Monday, October 5th, Molly became violently sick. She ran a fever and was vomiting
uncontrollably. She was rushed to the hospital and, by the afternoon, Linda developed a fever
and felt nauseous. Molly's condition progressively worsened over the next two days and, despite
the best efforts of the doctors, she died on Thursday. Linda got better and was sure that Molly's
illness had something to do with the hamburger at Nico's. On her suggestion, Donna made some
inquiries and found out that Nico's used hamburger patties processed and sold by Argus
International, a transnational meat processing giant. The next day, her fears were confirmed:
Molly's reports showed that she had died from a deadly strain of e coli bacteria, 0157:H7
(commonly referred to only as H7). H7 is usually found in ground meat and when consumed
undercooked, it can lead to serious complications including kidney failure and death.
On the very same day that Molly died, the Glasgow Herald carried a news item about the
death of a middle-aged gentleman, Mr. Kelvin Lithgoe. His estate had issued a statement
pointing out that Lithgoe's death had occurred after consuming a pack of processed meat
manufactured by Argus International. Lithgoe's medical reports revealed that he had been
infected by H7. The estate further alleged that the pack had been sold by Besco's Supermarket.
Following the report, Besco's recalled all processed meat items that had been supplied to the
retail chain by Argus International. Argus International, on the other hand, defended its
processing units. It further stressed that all its ground meat packages displayed an advisory that
the contents should be cooked to at least “medium-doneness” before consumption.
Please advise all parties on possible causes of action under Law of Torts, including
potential defences.
Question 2:
Alice and Bharath are neighbors. Alice took issue with Bharath and his wife, Clara,
moving next door three months ago and has repeatedly made comments to other neighbors about
the “Indian trash littering her pristine British streets”. Alice, without instigation, decides to dump
her garbage all over the front doorstep of Bharath and Clara’s flat. She leaves a note stating that
they should join the rest of the trash and be shipped back to India. When Bharath ignored the
note and cleaned up the mess, Alice became even angrier. Alice spread a rumor that she saw
Bharath kissing another Indian man near the shops and entered his house. The rumors eventually
found their way to Clara, as several women, including Alice, took delight in telling Clara about
her husband’s supposed indiscretions and how you cannot expect “savages to be faithful or
straight”. Later that night, she experienced severe episodes of uncontrollable shaking and
vomiting. Clara, who is otherwise fit and healthy, suffered from these physical effects for two
weeks until a psychiatrist proscribed some medication. One month after the incident with Alice,
Bharath is denied a job at a local IT firm with his friend, who works there, alleging that upper
management were not comfortable with a gay man working at their company.
As the lawyer of Bharath and Clara, please explain the potential tort claims that the
couple can pursue against Alice.
Question 3:

Sandy, a third grade teacher, is the head coach of the fifth-grade girls’ basketball team at
Queen’s Elementary and her team is currently 0-16 in the season. Roman, the part-time assistant
coach and teaching aide, blames Sandy for the team’s poor performance and devises a plan to get
her fired. Roman decides to accuse Sandy of stealing money from the team fund in front of the
parents and student-players after a game. Sandy, outraged, yells at Roman and calls him a liar
before throwing a basketball at the man. The basketball missed Roman but struck Tanav, a
parent, in the face. Sandy then went up to Roman and told him, “You’d better watch your back,
you coward.”

Roman also posted on his social media profile that “The head coach is a thief! Lock her
up!”. Delighting in her outburst and striking of a parent, he continues to spread the accusations
across social media and through the parents and students. Sandy was fired not only from her
position as head coach, but also from her teaching position. The school board stated clearly that
this was based on Roman’s accusation that Sandy had stolen money from the team and her
subsequent striking of a parent. Roman’s accusations were never substantiated; however, he was
promoted to fill Sandy’s old teaching position as well as her coaching position. After six months,
Sandy is still unable to find a teaching or coaching position in the community.

Please advise all parties on possible causes of action under Law of Torts, including
potential defences.
Question 4:

Ross was visiting Phoebe’s ‘zoological garden’ at Central Perk, where a fenced enclosure
contained a camel, Marcel. Ross was feeding the camel some sugarcane, when the camel caught
his hand in its teeth, biting and crushing it severely. Phoebe called expert evidence that the camel
had no natural tendency to bite human beings, and that camel was not wild animals in any part of
the world with a tendency to viciousness but was only under the control and in the service of
man as a domestic animal, carrying loads of people or products. Also, Phoebe did not know that
this camel had previously bitten anyone or was otherwise dangerous. Those who knew Marcel
variously described him as ‘very docile’, obedient, and ‘gentle, non-aggressive’. Ross alleged
that it was Phoebe’s negligence. He also stated that Phoebe owed Ross a duty of care, as Ross
was injured by the camel and she should have resumed control of Marcel as the camel was her
responsibility. Ross has filed a suit against Phoebe.  

Analyze the following hypothetical and answer the following: 

1. Can Ross can file a suit of negligence against Phoebe? Why?

2. Will Phoebe be held strictly liable for Marcel’s act or not? Why?
3. Can Phoebe claim any potential defenses? Why?  

Question 5:
Khushi and Mitali are third-year JGLS students. They are looking to rent a house near
JGU and they meet Zia, the owner of a nearby house. Seeing two hardworking, ambitious young
women and being reminded of her own daughter, Zia charges them half of what she would
normally charge for rent and frequently visits to cook dinner for the young ladies. Knowing that
some of her neighbors are complainers, she reminds them constantly to not cause any trouble to
the neighbours. Zia is unaware that the trio frequently host parties until late into the night and
Mitali has recently adopted a beagle, a breed known for their loud, constant baying.
Jishnu lives next door and often complains about the noise from the students who often
have parties till 3-4 AM. His young child can always barely sleep because of the loud noise from
their parties as well as the dog howling in the night.
 Another neighbour, Nayan complains that the street is frequently littered with takeaway
food containers and beer bottles from the parties. On one occasion, Nayan’s car tyre burst on a
broken beer bottle when he was parking his car in front of his house.
Another person, Hemali, buys the adjacent house to where the students live. Hemali has a
bad allergy to pet hair and dander. Over the course of the semester, Mitali’s dog often runs
around the neighborhood, without chain or leash, and frequently runs into Hemali’s house when
it sees her door is open, even if the door is only open for a minute or so. Hemali is frequently
suffering from headaches, blocked nasal passages, and coughing due to the exposure to the dog.
Hemali’s doctor has told her that the allergy will only get worse if she does not ensure there is no
dog hair anywhere in the house. Hemali has raised the issue with the girls, but they shrug and
say that it is fine before ignoring her.
One evening, Khushi and Mitali throw a party and light a massive bonfire. During the
night, some ambers from the bonfire landed in Hemali’s backyard garden, setting them ablaze
and destroying them.
Please advise any party on possible causes of action under Law of Torts, including
potential defences.
Question 6:
At the start of a semester, John leaves his laptop on a desk in the library while he uses the
bathroom. Upon returning to the desk, his laptop is missing. His phone and wallet were in his
pocket and nothing else of value was taken.
Later that week, John receives an anonymous WhatsApp text that states, “Your laptop is
in Professor Brown’s office.” He has been complaining to everyone about his stolen laptop and
thinks this is just his friends playing a practical joke on him. Shortly after the text, a couple of
pictures are sent, and you can see Prof. Brown’s nameplate on the door and John’s laptop sitting
on the desk through the window next to the door. At 3 AM that night, John leaves his dorm and
sneaks into the faculty offices, which are normally locked, however the guards seem to have
missed this door.
John moves up to the door of Prof. Brown’s and breaks into the office by forcing the door
open with his shoulder, resulting in a loud crash. A security guard, Chris, hears the noise and
responds. Chris sees John leaving the offices with his laptop under his arm and runs towards him
waving his baton shouting “You are not allowed onto this campus!”. John then turns and see
Chris running towards him. John immediately starts running back towards the dorms. Having
already had two issues with Academic Affairs and being on probation, John could not be caught
by the guards.
Chris is about 10 meters away from John, when John looks down at his laptop and
grimaces, before he throws it directly at Chris, hitting him in the face. Chris stumbles and falls
over, breaking his nose and falling unconscious. Seeing a nearby shed, John drags Chris to the
shed and uses the padlock on the door to lock the guard in the building. He grabs his laptop and
makes his way back to the dorm.
The next morning, John is asked by Bob, another security guard, to come to the security
office as an assault and battery is being investigated and his I.D. card was found at the scene.
John is locked in the office while the police are called. John is detained in the room for 45
minutes before the police arrive. Chris identifies John through the window to the office to the
police as the student that attacked him. John is then arrested and removed from the campus by
the police.
Please advise any party on possible causes of action under Law of Torts, including
potential defences.