THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA2001 ZB

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Tort law

Monday 15 May 2017: 10.00 – 13.15

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions.

Candidates must answer the COMPULSORY question in PART A and THREE

from the EIGHT questions in PART B.

Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
None.

© University of London 2017

UL17/0553
Page 1 of 6
PART A

Candidates must answer this COMPULSORY question about the article N J

McBride, ‘Michael and the future of tort law’ (2016) 32(1) Journal of Professional
Negligence.

1. (a) What do you understand to be the distinction between what the

author describes as the “uniform” and “policy” approach to
determining whether a public body owes a duty of care to an
individual harmed by a third party?

(b) Why does the author claim that the basis of the decision in the
House of Lords case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
(1988) has been misunderstood in subsequent cases and in
academic case commentary?

(c) Why do you think the UKSC struck out the claim in the case of
Michael insofar as it related to the common law of negligence but
allowed the claim under Article 2 of the ECHR to proceed?

(d) What do you consider to be the author’s primary contribution to

our understanding of the duty of care concept in this article?

PART B

Candidates must answer THREE questions in this section.

2. “An important achievement of the Defamation Act 2013 is in making

certain groups (such as journalists, website operators and academics)
more conscious of the need for careful and responsible publications.”

Discuss.

UL17/0553
Page 2 of 6
3. Jason is a high achieving employee at Egsheds, a recruitment agency.
Knowing Jason was ambitious Ela, the Human Resources manager at
Egsheds, decided to play a practical joke on Jason and so she sent him
what appeared to be a formal letter terminating his employment. Upon
reading the letter Jason collapsed. The lighted cigarette that Jason was
holding fell into a waste paper basket that was full of paper. Jason’s
office was soon engulfed in flames. When Fenella, Jason’s long term
girlfriend and also an employee of Egsheds, was informed that a fire had
started in Jason’s office she immediately collapsed. She was later
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The fire crew arrived
shortly afterwards but not in time to save Jason. Peter, a fireman on his
first emergency call, took one look at Jason’s lifeless body and collapsed
in shock. The fire had spread to a neighbouring office and, fearing
further loss of life, Samantha, another member of the fire crew, entered
the burning building. Happily, no-one was in the office and Samantha
also managed to escape being burned. However, Samantha, who had
recently recovered from diagnosed organic depression, suffered a
recurrence of the condition and is now unable to work.

Discuss the issues arising in the tort of negligence.

4. Soraya’s house includes a very large room that is used as a playroom

for her twin daughters (Megan and India), aged six. As a special birthday
treat, Soraya contracted with David to build, in the playroom, a play
house large enough to comfortably accommodate four children. The
work was delayed on a number of occasions but David informed Soraya
that the play house was suitable for accommodation on the day of the
twins’ birthday party. David also informed Soraya that some adjustments
needed to be made to the floor of the playroom, so as to create some
steps up to the play house. He advised Soraya to warn anyone entering
the play house that the ground may be unsafe. In the excitement of the
event, Soraya forgot to either put up a warning notice or advise her
guests of the state of the premises and because of the unsafe ground,
Jean, the grandmother of one of the child guests, fell and sustained
serious injury to her hip. Worse was to come when two children (Matthew
and Sebastian) were seriously injured when the roof of the play house
collapsed on to them. Matthew was an invited guest but Sebastian had
climbed into the playroom, through an open, low placed, window,
attracted by the look of the play house and by the party food that was
displayed in the play house. Devon, another child guest, was taken
seriously ill after eating an egg that was infected with the salmonella
bacteria.

Advise all parties of their rights and liabilities.

UL17/0553
Page 3 of 6
5. Liam has been employed as a physical education teacher for 30 years
at the same school, Perfect Academy. He has always taught pupils
between the ages of 13 and 16. Liam was dismissed from his
employment a year ago and has since been unable to secure
employment as a teacher.

The circumstances of his dismissal related to an accusation from a 13

year-old-boy, Kym, that Liam had punched him during a football training
session. A formal investigation was conducted by an independent
Human Resources consultant, Diego. The report concluded that Liam
had punched the boy, despite Liam’s repeated denials. On the basis of
the report, the head teacher dismissed Liam. Errors and inaccuracies in
the investigation report have since come to light. The report claimed that
the investigator had interviewed Kym, but this was found to be
impossible since Kym was out of the country and not contactable at the
time at which the interview was stated to have taken place. Further, two
pupil witnesses present at the time of the alleged assault, who could
have supported Liam’s account, were not interviewed.

Liam, who had just reached the early retirement threshold of 55 when he
was dismissed, invested 50% of his entire pension in Doonot Industries,
after scrutinising the audited accounts produced by Matt of ABC
Accountants. Significant errors were found in the audited accounts and
Liam lost his entire investment.

Advise Liam on whether he can recover his financial losses in the tort of
negligence.

UL17/0553
Page 4 of 6
6. Jenny decided to celebrate her 40th birthday by, for the first time in her
life, joining a local gym, Step Up. The practice in Step Up is to devote
the first session – of one hour duration – to a health check-up, including
heart and blood pressure checks – and a session with one of the
personal trainers, who would demonstrate the equipment and draw up
an exercise routine to suit the gym member.

Jenny was assigned to Magdela, a personal trainer of 15 years’

experience at a number of well-known gyms. Magdela failed to read up
on the Step Up protocols and so did not conduct the health check. In her
defence, Magdela claimed that gyms do not usually conduct health
checks and, therefore, even if she had known of the Step Up
requirements, she would not have considered it necessary to carry out
the health checks.

All seemed to be going well until Jenny suffered agonising pain as a

result of a twisted muscle, caused by pulling onto a weight too quickly
and without engaging the correct posture. Jenny was taken to hospital
where she also developed chest pains. Within an hour of her arrival at
the accident and emergency department of Toddington Hospital, Jenny
went into cardiac arrest (heart attack). It transpired that Jenny had a
heart problem which would have been revealed if the health checks had
been performed.

Saviour, the junior doctor in charge, was so anxious to deal with the
cardiac arrest that he completely forgot to deal with the muscle strain
problem. Unfortunately, the muscle injury was more serious than had
been thought and Jenny is now permanently disabled.

Advise Jenny to her rights and liabilities in the tort of negligence.

7. “The defence of ex turpi causa (illegality) is overly punitive and really has
no place in the law of torts.”

Discuss.

UL17/0553
Page 5 of 6
8. Jo is a senior consultant in Easyjobs, a recruitment consultancy. All
senior consultants have sole occupancy offices and Jo was lucky to have
secured a large office on the ground floor, leading into a large paved
courtyard. Easyjobs had a strict policy against its consultants bringing
‘guests’ into offices. Jo had arranged a meeting with one of the firm’s
most lucrative clients, David, who had flown over from New York
especially for the meeting at which it was expected that Jo would secure
a one million pound contract. Unfortunately, Jo’s dog sitter was unwell
on the day in question and Jo was unable to find anyone to care for her
dog (Bob) whose aggressive behaviour demanded close attention. At
her wits end, Jo decided to bring Bob into the office, with the intention of
keeping him in the paved area during her meeting with David. The
meeting was progressing very well indeed when David caught a glimpse
of Bob. Being very fond of dogs, David rushed to the patio door and
opened it, whereupon Bob leapt on to David, pushing him over toward a
heavy glass table on which he struck his head and died instantly.

Advise David’s Estate in respect of a claim against Easyjobs.

9. “Duty of care and remoteness of damage share similar, if not the same,
functions.”

Discuss, with illustrative case law.

END OF PAPER

UL17/0553
Page 6 of 6