{"id":2951,"date":"2023-01-30T14:51:03","date_gmt":"2023-01-30T14:51:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essaybishops.com\/?p=2951"},"modified":"2023-01-30T14:51:05","modified_gmt":"2023-01-30T14:51:05","slug":"lw403-law-of-torts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/lw403-law-of-torts\/","title":{"rendered":"LW403 Law of Torts"},"content":{"rendered":"

LLB Law
\nLLB Law with Business
\nLLB Law with Criminology
\nLevel Four Coursework
\nLW403 Law of Torts
\nAssessment Instructions:
\nYou are required to answer TWO questions from a total of FIVE.
\nYou MUST answer the PART A Question and ONE Question from PART B.
\nMarks: All questions carry equal marks
\nNature of assessment: Portfolio of Answers
\nWord Count: 3,500 excluding footnotes (a 10% margin of error over this word count is
\nacceptable). We recommend that you split your word count evenly between the two parts as
\neach section carries equal weighting towards your mark.
\nReferencing: All answers must be fully referenced using OSCOLA. Footnotes should be
\nprovided throughout the text along with a Table of Authorities and Bibliography. Candidates
\nshould use, caselaw, statutory material, research reports and journal articles in the
\nassessment.
\nMarking:
\nThe table below outlines how your answers will be marked, and the weighting placed on the
\nelements of each criterion. You can find the full rubric on the Assessment Brief. Explanations
\nfor what each of these criteria mean can be found in the Marking Guide for Students.
\nCriteria Element Weighting
\nKnowledge and
\nUnderstanding
\nUnderstanding of Law and Legal Issues 35%
\nAccuracy of Law and Legal Terminology 5%
\nCritical Thinking,
\nOriginality and
\nAutonomy
\nApplication, Argument and Analysis 20%
\nResearch 10%
\nUse of Sources 10%
\nStructure and
\nPresentation
\nWritten Communication 10%
\nGrammar, spelling and language conventions 5%
\nReferencing 5%
\nPart A
\nYou MUST answer this question
\nQuestion 1
\nInstructions
\nYou are a trainee solicitor at Painter Smith Partners. You have received the following email
\nfrom your supervisor.
\nFrom: Isilay Taban
\nSent: 18th December 2022 13:22
\nTo: Trainee Solicitor \nSubject: Personal Injury Client
\nDear trainee,
\nWe have been instructed by Hakan who has suffered an injury at work. The facts we have
\nreceived to date are as follows:
\nHakan, an employee of Lesco\u2019s Supermarket, slipped on some spilled Greek yoghurt
\nin the dairy aisle whilst working. Shortly before this, Annabella, another employee,
\nhad accidentally spilled a box of yoghurts and made no attempt to clear it up. Hakan
\nwas carrying a large box, which had obscured his vision, so did not see the spillage.
\nHakan hit his head on the floor and an ambulance was called. There was a delay of
\nover an hour in the ambulance arriving. It has since transpired that the original
\nambulance assigned to the job was involved in a road traffic accident and it took
\nsome time for another to become available.
\nHakan was taken to the Frighton Royal Hospital where Connor, a doctor, failed to
\ndiagnose that he had a bleed on the brain. As a result of a previously undiagnosed,
\npre-existing genetic disorder Hakan is more seriously affected by this than others
\nmay have been.
\nAs a result of the accident, and its aftermath, Hakan is no longer able to work in the
\nsupermarket. Furthermore, he can no longer continue with his LLB (hons) Law
\nstudies at Frighton University where he had consistently been topping his class in all
\nhis modules and was due to commence a Pupillage at 1 Frighton Chambers the
\nSeptember after next. Hakan is now suffering from depression because of the
\naccident.
\nAhead of our first meeting with Hakan, please could you draft responses to the following:
\n1. Outline what potential claims Hakan might have, for which tort and what must be
\nproved to establish liability.
\n2. What legal test will the court apply to establish whether Hakan is owed a duty of
\ncare in negligence, and will a duty of care be owed in this scenario?
\n3. How might Hakan demonstrate that there has been a breach of that duty or those
\nduties?
\n4. What legal tests will be applied to establish causation in this scenario?
\n5. Might there be any defences to negligence here?
\n6. What further information is needed for you to provide more complete advice? Why?
\n7. What remedies might be available to Hakan?
\nI will check your advice prior to the meeting, but please ensure you provide case authorities
\nfor your advice and explain how the law leads you to draw your conclusions.
\nRegards,
\nIsilay Taban
\nSenior Partner \u2013 Personal Injury
\nPainter Smith Partners LLP
\n(100 Marks)
\nContinued on the next page
\nLW403 Law of Torts Assessment Questions January 2022
\nPart B
\nYou must answer ONE question from this part
\nQuestion 2
\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants
\n[2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, constrain the
\nexpansions of liability for vicarious liability and adopts restrictive interpretations of both
\nrelationship and connection requirements.
\nConsidering the above, evaluate the current legal position in relation to vicarious liability.
\nTo answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
\n\uf0b7 Paula Giliker, \u2018Can the Supreme Court halt the ongoing expansion of vicarious
\nliability? Barclays and Morrison in the UK Supreme Court\u2019 (2021) 37 Professional
\nNegligence 55.
\n\uf0b7 Donal Nolan, \u2018Reigning in Vicarious Liability\u2019 (2020) Industrial Law Journal 609.
\n(100 marks)
\nQuestion 3
\n\u2018For one branch of the law to enable a person to profit from behaviour which another branch
\nof the law treats as being criminal or otherwise unlawful would tend to produce inconsistency
\nand disharmony in the law, and so cause damage to the integrity of the system\u2026\u2019
\nHenderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust Foundation [2020], per Lord Hamblen
\nat [119]
\nEvaluate the extent to which the illegality defence is justifiable by public policy
\nconsiderations.
\nTo answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
\n\uf0b7 James Goudkamp, ‘Does Patel v Mirza Apply in Tort?’ [2017] (July\/August) Personal
\nInjury Law Journal 1.
\n\uf0b7 James Goudkamp, ‘Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation
\nTrust ‘ (2021) 37 Journal of Professional Negligence 171
\n(100 marks)
\nQuestion 4
\n\u2018\u2026what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in
\nBermondsey\u2026\u2019 Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, at 865, per Thesiger LJ.
\nIn light of this statement, evaluate the use of the locality principle in private nuisance.
\nTo answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
\n\uf0b7 Sandy Steel, \u2018The Locality Principle In Private Nuisance\u2019 (2017) 76 The Cambridge
\nLaw Journal 145.
\n\uf0b7 Patrick Bishop and Victoria Jenkins, \u2018Planning and Nuisance: Revisiting the Balance
\nof Public and Private Interests in Land-Use Development\u2019 (2011) 23(2) Journal of
\nEnvironmental Law 285.
\n(100 marks)
\nContinued on the next page
\nPage 5 of 5
\nLW403 Law of Torts Assessment Questions January 2022
\nQuestion 5
\n\u2018Since Lord Hoffmann\u2019s famous dicta in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
\nUKHL 47, it has been difficult indeed for claimants who have voluntarily taken a risk inherent
\nin their activity to succeed in tort for personal injury.\u2019
\nEvaluate the extent to which Tomlinson provides an insuperable defence to Occupiers\u2019
\nLiability claims.
\nTo answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
\n\uf0b7 Andrew Evans, \u2018Voluntary acceptance of obvious risk – not necessarily fatal to claims
\nin occupiers’ liability 1957 – The White Lion Hotel (A Partnership) v James\u2019 (2021) 3
\nJournal of Personal
\n===><\/trainees@psplawyers.com><\/i.taban@psplawyers.com><\/p>\n

Sample Answer Guide:
\nPART A
\nQuestion 1
\nOutline what potential claims Hakan might have, for which tort and what must be proved to establish liability.
\nHakan might have several potential claims for compensation for the injuries and losses he sustained as a result of the accident at Lesco’s Supermarket, including:
\na. Negligence: Hakan can claim compensation for losses resulting from the failure of the employees of Lesco’s Supermarket to take reasonable care to prevent harm to him.
\nTo establish liability for negligence, Hakan must prove that:
\nLesco’s Supermarket owed him a duty of care,
\nThere was a breach of that duty of care,
\nThe breach caused his injury, and
\nHe suffered losses as a result of the injury.
\nb. Breach of Statutory Duty: Hakan may also have a claim against Lesco’s Supermarket under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which imposes a duty on employers to ensure the health and safety of their employees.
\nTo establish liability, Hakan must prove that:
\n– Lesco’s Supermarket breached the duty of care owed under the Act, and
\nThe breach caused his injury.
\nWhat legal test will the court apply to establish whether Hakan is owed a duty of care in negligence, and will a duty of care be owed in this scenario?
\nThe court will apply the ‘neighbourhood test’ as established in the case of Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, to determine whether a duty of care is owed in negligence.
\nIn this scenario, Lesco’s Supermarket will owe a duty of care to Hakan as their employee, as it was foreseeable that he could be injured as a result of the supermarket’s failure to take reasonable care to prevent harm.
\nHow might Hakan demonstrate that there has been a breach of that duty or those duties?
\nHakan can demonstrate a breach of duty by showing that the actions of Lesco’s Supermarket employees, including Annabella and the ambulance service, fell below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have taken in the same circumstances. This can be proven by considering the following factors:<\/p>\n

The nature of the work,
\nThe degree of risk involved,
\nThe likelihood of injury occurring,
\nThe gravity of the injury, and
\nThe resources available to prevent the injury.
\nWhat legal tests will be applied to establish causation in this scenario?
\nThe court will apply the ‘but-for’ test and the ‘material contribution’ test to establish causation in this scenario.
\nThe ‘but-for’ test requires the court to determine whether the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the breach of duty, while the ‘material contribution’ test asks whether the breach of duty materially contributed to the injury.<\/p>\n

Might there be any defences to negligence here?
\nLesco’s Supermarket may raise several defences to negligence, including:<\/p>\n

Contributory negligence: if Hakan was partly responsible for his own injury, Lesco’s Supermarket may argue that he contributed to the accident.
\nVoluntary assumption of risk: if Hakan was aware of the risk posed by the spillage but continued to work anyway, Lesco’s Supermarket may argue that he voluntarily assumed the risk.
\nStatutory immunity: if Lesco’s Supermarket was acting in accordance with a statute or regulation, they may argue that they are immune from liability.
\nWhat further information is needed for you to provide more complete advice? Why?
\nTo provide more complete advice, we need further information on the following:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LLB Law LLB Law with Business LLB Law with Criminology Level Four Coursework LW403 Law of Torts Assessment Instructions: You are required to answer TWO questions from a total of FIVE. You MUST answer the PART A Question and ONE Question from PART B. Marks: All questions carry equal marks Nature of assessment: Portfolio of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[892],"tags":[1533],"class_list":["post-2951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law-dissertation-topic-examples","tag-lw403-law-of-torts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2951","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}