You have been asked to read the following police report and evaluate the strength of any claims that may arise in negligence for any psychiatric injury emanating from the accident.

2024-07-11T09:22:22+00:00
  
🔴 LIVE EXPERT
  56 Orders

LA5015 Tort Law 

Kindly share your Latest Assessment to the LIVE EXPERT to get the DISCOUNTED price

Learning Outcomes:

Knowledge
1. Describe and understand the concepts underlying tort law. (COI)
2. Use case law and statute law in presenting argument. (IC)

Thinking skills
3. Apply the law to complex hypothetical problem situations.
4. Critically evaluate the law in its social and political context. (CI)

Subject-based practical skills
5. Demonstrate knowledge in assessment.
6. Argue effectively. (SEI)

Skills for life and work (general skills)
7. Develop communication and presentation skills. (DP)
8. Plan and manage learning effectively

Word Count: 4000 words (which DOES NOT include the bibliography or footnotes) - anything written beyond this will not be marked.
Reference using the OSCOLA system.

Instructions to Students: There are 6 questions on the paper. You must answer 2 questions in total,
ONE from PART A and ONE from PART B. All questions carry equal marks.

Part A: Problem Question (2000 words) You must answer the following:
You are a trainee solicitor in the law firm McFadden and Whitehead (M&W), which specialises in negligence claims. You have been asked to read the following police report and evaluate the strength of any claims that may arise in negligence for any psychiatric injury emanating from the accident. Discuss only the duty of care requirements. Be sure to set out your answer professionally and include the names of each claimant under a new subheading.
Police Incident Report Reference Number 8372048 - 20th June 2023

Description of Event:
CCTV footage has confirmed that at 20:28, a yellow Toyota Corolla (licence BN12748) was driving with due care on Edgware Road, when it was hit by a speeding red Tesla S (licence SK38383). The collision caused a very loud bang (estimated at 140 decibels) and significant structural damage to both vehicles.

The Tesla was overturned, before being engulfed in flames. The driver was taken to hospital but has since perished. The two passengers in the Toyota survived. The initial impact took place at the junction (beneath the flyover), but the Tesla’s eventual crash site was on the pavement, approximately 30 metres from a large group of revellers (the crowd) who were on their way to a concert in the vicinity.

Significant evidence from the witness statements and follow-up visits:

Toyota
Tony, the driver of the Toyota, emerged with several broken bones. His injuries appear to be mainly physical, but he has since confirmed that he frequently worries about driving again and finds it difficult to cope with the grief of seeing the Tesla overturned.
His wife, Bettina, was sitting in the passenger’s seat. The airbag prevented any significant physical injury. However, she alleges that she has developed anxiety neurosis after the collision.

The Crowd
A significant proportion of the crowd had come over from the Netherlands to attend a live performance. Many have complained that they were traumatised by seeing Noel, the driver of the red Tesla trying to escape his burning car. One member of the crowd, Louis, had received prior medical training and so attempted to intervene. He has developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Melanie was standing at the back of the crowd. She heard the loud bang and the cries of the driver, but did not see the accident site. She was pregnant at the time and suggests that the noise was so overwhelming and shocking that it ultimately led to the loss of her child.

The Hospital Visit
Noel’s wife, Andrea, was informed of the accident. She arrived to see him in hospital at 23:30. While he was unconscious, he had been cleaned up and his wounds had been treated. This sight has led to develop depression. He died at 23:52.

The Live Stream
One member of the onlooking crowd, Jan, was live streaming his journey to the concert. He stopped and filmed Noel’s anguish as he tried to escape the burning wreckage. The footage was viewed over 10,000 times. Comments range from complaints of nightmares to organic depression.

Part 2: Essay Question (2000 words)

You must answer one of the following questions:
1. In the journal article, ‘Deconstructing the Duty of Care’ (2013) 129 LQR 559, Nolan argues that the concept of a duty of care has impeded the proper development of negligence and that it would be better to incorporate it within other components of the negligence enquiry, such as breach, damage, causation, remoteness and defences.
Critically analyse these positions and provide your own interpretation of the duty of care concept

2. In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, McNair J explained: ‘a doctor is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion that takes a contrary view. At the same time, that does not mean that a medical man can obstinately and pig-headedly carry on with some old technique if it has been proved to be contrary to what is really substantially the whole of informed medical opinion. Otherwise you might get men today saying: ‘I don’t believe in anaesthetics. I don’t believe in antiseptics. I am going to continue to do my surgery in the way it was done in the eighteenth century’. That clearly would be wrong.’
How useful has the Bolam test been for cases of medical negligence?

3. In Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] AC 677 Lord Toulson argued that ‘Salmond’s formula … was cited and applied in many cases, sometimes by stretching it artificially; but, even with stretching, it was not universally satisfactory. The difficulties in its application were particularly evident in cases of injury to persons or property caused by an employee’s deliberate act of misconduct.”
Critically evaluate the development of the close connection test for establishing vicarious liability

4. In Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, Thesinger LJ famously said ‘what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey’.
Critically analyse how far private nuisance protects the interests of the UK’s upper classes at the expense of others

5. Do you feel the distinction made by courts in cases of pure economic loss between negligent misstatement and activities is sustainable?

The quoted price covers up to 3000 words. For custom requirements Live Chat or Whatsapp ← Click Here

                             

Email: care@academiasupport.co.uk

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions