100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
First Class Tort Law Exam with Feedback £7.93   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

First Class Tort Law Exam with Feedback

 55 views  2 purchases
  • Module
  • Institution

First Class Tort Law Exam with a problem question on negligence and the general principles of duty of care and an essay on the tort of defamation. The grades and feedback for each question is shown at the end.

Preview 2 out of 13  pages

  • December 19, 2023
  • 13
  • 2023/2024
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
avatar-seller
SECTION A




ANSWER


The overriding issue is whether the defendants, Duhret Tennis Club, and the A&E department, owe a duty of

care to those who have suffered from physical or psychiatric illness because of their negligence. Each of the

claimants will be advised individually.




To succeed in a negligence claim, it must be established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care

which was breached causing the claimant loss and that there are no applicable defences.




Duhret Tennis Club: duty of care


Page 1 of 13

, The issue is whether the tennis court fence was negligently constructed by the Duhret Tennis Club at a height

of 2.75 metres. Whilst this is the standard fence height in the “absence of any particular hazard”, it must

therefore be determined whether t the Duhret Tennis Club owed a duty of care.




As Eleanor and Priscilla are members of the club, they will be treated as visitors under the Occupier’s Liability

Act 1957 as they subsequently have permission to be on the property. Under section 2, the Club owes its

visitors a common duty of care to take “such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see

that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited”.




Establishing whether this circumstance is ‘reasonable’ is a harder issue. Following the almost analogical case

of Bolton v Stone [1951], where the claimant was hit on the head by a stray cricket ball outside her house

adjacent to the cricket pitch, the risk of tennis balls going over the fence could have been reasonably foreseen

by the reasonable man. However, the risk of the injuries may not have been foreseen to follow, meaning the

foreseeability requirement of the hazard would not be satisfied. However, this may be contradicted by the fact

that the Durhet Tennis Club is “nearby” to the Durhet distillery. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest the

injuries were foreseeable and that the Club should have taken further precautions to minimise the subsequent

risk. Nevertheless, the fencing requirements outlined the need for further height in respect of “any particular

hazard”. As stray tennis balls have been established as foreseeable, the Duhret Tennis Club has clearly fallen

below the standard of care expected of them and so will be in breach of any duty of care owed.




Furthermore, the chain of causation is straightforward. Due to the fence being negligently constructed to the

incorrect height, a bad shot could cause a ball to go over the inadequate fence and into the path of the lorry

transferring ethyl acetate. Jim’s loss of control of the tanker and subsequent explosion is a foreseeable

consequence. It is reasonable to believe that ‘but for’ the Duhret Tennis Club’s negligence to construct a fence

of the required height for hazards, the claimants would not have suffered these injuries (Barnett v Chelsea and

Kensington Hospital [1969]).

Page 2 of 13

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller legalwarrior1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.93. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

73918 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling

Recently viewed by you


£7.93  2x  sold
  • (0)
  Add to cart