Tort law
Instructions
1. Read all instructions carefully – and read through the entire paper at least once before you start writing.
2. Candidates should attempt THREE questions AT LEAST ONE from SECTION A and AT LEAST ONE from SECTION B.
3. We recommend that you spend 3 hours writing your answers.
4. You must write, upload and submit your answers to Tabular within 24 hours from release of this exam.
5. You should not submit answers to more than the required number of questions.
6. All questions will carry the same number of marks unless otherwise stated.
7. Candidates must type their answers into a Word file/ .pdf and upload this to Tabula.
All answers should be doubled-spaced.
8. Add your student number to all uploaded files.
Please type your student number at the top of the first page of your answer and your submission’s word count excluding footnotes/references.
Do not write your name anywhere on the paper (including in the file name).
9. TOTAL word limit: 3,750 words.
This word limit applies to the aggregate number of words used to answer all questions, and reflects the specified time set for the exam within the 24-hour period. It excludes footnotes/references, but footnotes/references will not be marked, and you will not be given credit for them.
The limit is an upper bound on your word count and not a target. In answering all required questions, you may write less if you wish.
When submitting your assessment you will be required to state your word count, excluding footnotes/references. A false representation will constitute evidence of cheating.
10. You are allowed to access module materials, notes, resources, references and the internet during the assessment.
11. For the avoidance of doubt, students may use a relevant statute book or online legislation resource, and where English is not their first language, an English dictionary.
12. IN UNDERTAKING THIS ASSESSMENT, YOU AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON CHEATING AND THE LAW SCHOOL POLICY ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND CHEATING.
You should not try to communicate with any other person during the assessment period (ending with submission of your assessment), unless expressly instructed to do so as part of the assessment requirements.
All assessments will be checked for plagiarism and poor academic practice using Turnitin. Where plagiarism and/or poor academic practice is suspected, the School will apply its cheating policy and reserves the right, in particular, to interview any student regarding their performance in this assessment.
The Director of Academic Practice reserves the right to interview any student regarding their completion of any assessment, for the purposes of maintaining academic integrity. Students may be selected randomly for interview.
13. By starting this assessment you are declaring yourself fit to undertake it. You are expected to make a reasonable attempt at the assessment by answering the questions in the paper.
Note that:
– Late submissions are not accepted unless you encounter difficulties. You are able to upload your assessment up to two hours past the time set for this assignment. If you do this, you must record in the Mitigating Circumstances Portal the reason for late submission. The Exam Board will consider your case. If the mitigating circumstances are deemed eligible, then the assessment will be marked as normal and the marks will count towards exam board decisions on progression and award. If the mitigating circumstances are not deemed eligible a mark of 0% will be applied to the assessment.
– We therefore strongly recommend that you upload and submit your assessment no later than 45 minutes before the end of the 24-hour period.
– If you are normally accorded additional time for the completion of an exam, this time is to be added to the recommended duration of this assessment. For example, if you are accorded an additional 30 minutes’ reading time for a 3-hour exam, you have 3 hours and 30 minutes, within the 24-hour period. You will not be permitted extra time beyond the end of the 24-hour period.
– If you have an agreement with Disability Services regarding the marking of your assessment, please affix the ‘yellow sticker’ provided to you by Disability Services to your answer file as or on the first page.
Contact the convenor or IT immediately if during the assessment period:
• you cannot access the assessment;
• you believe you have been given access to the wrong assessment.
Write to your module convenor immediately if you cannot complete your assessment because:
• you lose your internet connection;
• your device fails;
• you become unwell and are unable to continue;
• you are affected by circumstances beyond your control (e.g. fire alarm).
Note that:
• convenors will only be available within the first 2 hours of release of this exam; and
• technical support will only be available between 9AM and 5PM (BST).
Your assessment starts below.
LA1240
SECTION A
1. Has the Consumer Protection Act 1987 [CPA] improved the English law of product liability, or would it have been better to retain the previous negligence-based regime for defective products? Discuss with reference to both the CPA and relevant case law.
2. Critically evaluate the main characteristics of the contributory negligence defence. How should the defence of contributory negligence relate, if at all, to the defences of volenti non fit injuria (consent) and ex turpi causa non oritur actio (illegality)?
3. “The law determining when there is liability for pure economic loss is an incoherent mess.” Do you agree? Can the cases in this area be explained in a coherent, principled way?
4. Should the tort system be replaced by a loss compensation scheme as in New Zealand? Does tort law serve any important purposes that could not be served by such a scheme?
SECTION B
5. Gary and John, both aged 15, decided to go cycling one afternoon in the countryside surrounding Moldhaven. After cycling for a few miles, they decided to stop for a drink. They entered an off-licence, where they were served by Filipe. Gary asked for a six-pack of Headbangers Extra Strength Lager for each of them.
Gary told Filipe that “cycling up those hills will be much easier after we’ve drunk that lot”. Filipe sold the six-packs to Gary. The two boys returned to their bikes and cycled several more miles, drinking from the cans of lager as they did so. After each of them had consumed three cans of lager, they decided that they should start a “Mexican wave”, which involved each of them in turn standing up on the bike pedals and waving his hands in the air. As they were doing this, Gary lost control of his bike and crashed into the back of John’s bike, pushing him into the path of an oncoming car, driven by Didier. Both John and Gary were seriously injured in the subsequent collision with the car.
The car was severely dented in the collision and one of the front tyres was punctured. Despite realising that the tyre was damaged, Didier decided to drive Gary and John to Moldhaven County Hospital for treatment. Anxious to get them to the hospital as soon as possible, Didier exceeded the speed limit of 30 mph. On the way to the hospital, he lost control of the car because of the puncture.
The car crashed into a ditch, causing extensive damage to the bodywork of the car, but no further injury to those in the car. Didier then used his mobile phone to call an emergency ambulance. Ten minutes after he had made the phone call, the ambulance arrived at the scene of the crash and took Gary and John to Moldhaven County Hospital for emergency treatment. Unfortunately, Gary suffered from the rare blood disorder Haemophilia (a hereditary, genetic disorder that impairs the body’s natural ability to control blood-clotting), and despite the best efforts of the surgical team, he died on the operating table.
One week later, Didier asked his neighbour Oscar, who is a keen amateur car-repairer, if he would repair the damaged bodywork on his car. Oscar replied: “Yeah, I’ll give it a go”. Oscar made a mess of the repairs and Didier had to have the car repaired professionally at considerably greater cost than would have been necessary before Oscar had done any work on it.Advise all parties as to any possible claims and liabilities in Tort.
6. Abe organised a party and invited two of his friends, Beatrice and Callie. Beatrice did not like Callie and resented the fact that she was invited. At the party, Callie sensed Beatrice’s hostility and gave Beatrice a series of dirty looks. This enraged Beatrice, who punched Callie in the face, breaking her nose. In response, Callie said to Beatrice, “I will break your legs!” On hearing this, Abe held Callie down, as he was determined to prevent the situation from escalating.
Abe told Callie to “go and cool off”. Callie visited the bathroom to examine her broken nose. She had always been curious about her friend Abe and so she entered his bedroom to look around. There was a live wire exposed in Abe’s bedroom, and he had not bothered to call an electrician. Callie accidentally touched it and suffered an electric shock. She recoiled and hit her hand against the wall, breaking her hand.
The encounter at the party reignited Beatrice’s grudge against Callie, and Beatrice started to follow Callie home after work. She also made anonymous calls and breathed threateningly down the phone.
As a result of these experiences, Callie developed a panic disorder. Beatrice confronted Callie and, hoping to upset her even further, falsely told Callie that Abe really hated her and had insulted her behind her back. Callie was so upset by this that she felt physically sick, and later developed severe social anxiety.
Discuss the liability in tort of Abe, Beatrice and Callie.
7. Gail, a famous movie star, gave an interview in which she claimed to have donated the earnings from her latest film to charity. The Daily Tattle published an article stating that Gail made 15 million pounds from the film and used it to buy a lavish London home. The article was based on an anonymous source and was rushed into print without further investigation. The paper did not contact Gail for comment.
The article also claimed that Gail was in a romantic relationship with Hillel, a software designer from Camden. In fact, Hillel had never met Gail, but as a result of the article he was subject to a great deal of unwanted public attention, as well as constant requests by newspapers and magazines for interviews.
The article was so successful for The Daily Tattle that the editor decided to publish a follow-up piece about Gail. Journalists for the paper hacked into Gail’s phone and listened to her messages, hoping to discover details about her personal life. One journalist took a photo of her sunbathing topless on a beach to be published along with the article.
Advise The Daily Tattle as to any liability it may have in tort to Gail and Hillel.
_________________________________________________