LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS & LAW
EXAMINATION PAPER
MODULE TITLE :
Law of Tort 2
CRN:
1872
COURSE(S) :
LLB (Hons) Law
DATE OF EXAMINATION :
11 May 2011
START TIME :
0900
FINISH TIME :
1115
READING TIME :
15 minutes
MATERIALS ALLOWED:
Unmarked Statute book
EXAMINER(S) :
Edmund Fitzpatrick
Notes for candidates
Answer any TWO questions
A case list is attached to the end of the paper.
Page 1 of 9
QUESTION 1
A party was advertised for 1st February 2009 at the Crown public house owned
and operated by Masterbrewers Ltd. Two hundred tickets had been sold in
advance.
Entertainment was to be provided by a local celebrity band.
Carla and Kevin were employed to manage the public house which had recently
been refurbished by a firm of local contractors “Renovate Ltd”. Although the work
had been completed last week, Carla had notified Masterbrewers that bare
electric wires had been left hanging from the wall inside the dining room.
As one of the toilets had a leak, Carla put a notice outside telling customers not
to use it but to use the toilets further down the corridor because of the water
problem.
The following events occurred on the 1st February 2009:
(1) Jack a window cleaner came during the afternoon to clean the pub
windows. He fell and broke his ankle when the steps leading into the cellar
gave way. Jack was collecting buckets of water from the cellar because the
outside tap had frozen
(2) Cheryl, the lead singer in the celebrity band received an electric shock
when she plugged in the speaker system
(3) Doreen ignored the notice on the toilet door as she could not be bothered
to queue for the other toilet. She slipped on water which had gathered from
the leak and broke her wrist
(4) Sidney, aged 14, wanted to go to the event to see the girl band but had
been refused a ticket because of his age. He started to climb up a drainpipe
to get to the roof of the pub intending to slip in through a skylight. The
drainpipe came away from the wall and Sidney fell and broke his arm
(5) Kevin, who was in charge of the cooking, forgot he had left a pan of chips
on the hob and a fire started. Robbie, a fireman, suffered severe burns when
he tackled the blaze in the kitchen when a wooden beam fell down on him.
Advise Jack, Cheryl, Doreen, Sidney and Robbie whether they have any
claims in tort arising from these events and if so against whom they should
pursue their claims.
Page 2 of 9
QUESTION 2
ABC Laboratories do animal research and testing. Animal rights protestors have
targeted the laboratory on several occasions. Ahmed and Mumtaz own a house
next to the laboratory. They live there with Mumtaz’s mother, Nazia. A fence
separating the two properties, which was erected by ABC, has fallen into
disrepair.
In one part of the Laboratory ABC keeps an adult cobra, which has a venomous
bite. ABC also keeps cows and horses to assist in its research.
One night a group of protestors led by Jim, break into the laboratory. The
protestors are armed with baseball bats. They release the cobra and it escapes
through an open window. The snake wriggles through the grounds and
eventually finds itself in Mumtaz’s bathroom. Mumtaz stands on the snake,
which immediately bites her. Shocked, Mumtaz runs into her garden, trips and
breaks her leg. She is taken to hospital. At the hospital, anti-venom is
administered to Mumtaz who suffers an allergic reaction resulting in her left arm
becoming permanently paralysed. She makes a full recovery from her broken
leg.
Meanwhile back in the laboratory, the protestors are disturbed by Bill, a security
guard employed by ABC. Jim brandishes his bat at Bill and Bill hits Jim with his
truncheon, breaking Bill’s arm. In the commotion that follows, the horses and
cows escape through the fence and destroy Ahmed’s greenhouse. Nazia tries to
stop them but is bitten on her arm by one of the horses.
Advise the owners of ABC Laboratory as to their liabilities in tort arising
from these incidents.
Page 3 of 9
QUESTION 3
Dryden Park is a luxury hotel set in the countryside and owned and operated by
Leisure Enterprises Ltd. The hotel complex includes a golf course. Adjoining the
hotel is a row of cottages which front onto the main road leading to hotel. Two
years ago Sheila and James moved into one of the cottages because they loved
its rural setting. They are both professional musicians who give private lessons at
home. Sheila collects carp and has a pond in her garden fed by water from an
underground source that also feeds ponds in the hotel grounds and golf course.
They have a baby daughter, Gemma.
Fred and Eric, who are Sarah and John’s neighbours, work at the hotel.
Advise Leisure Enterprises, Sheila and James, Fred and Eric as to their
rights and liabilities in relation to the following situations.
1. A year ago Dryden Park expanded into the conference and wedding market.
Every weekend there is loud music until the early hours which disturbs Sheila,
James and Gemma. Cars pass the house throughout the weekend and spoil
James and Sheila’s enjoyment of sitting in their garden. In addition, five major
golf tournaments a year are held on the golf course. Golf balls frequently land in
James and Sheila’s garden and their windows have been broken twice. Sheila
and James have complained to Leisure Enterprises.
In addition, Fred and Eric hold weekly parties every Wednesday. The parties do
not normally start until 11.00pm. Shouting and loud music carry on until the early
morning. James, Sheila and Gemma cannot sleep and Gemma now has to
sleep more during the day. James and Sheila are then unable to hold as many
music lessons so lose income. In retaliation James and Sheila practise their
piano and violin early every morning waking Eric and Fred at six am.
2. James decided to visit his neighbours to ask them to make less noise. While
he was standing banging the front door, a lamp fell onto his head, knocking him
out. Fred and Eric had recently paid a local firm, Electro & Sons, to install the
lamp.
3. Sheila’s garden was flooded and her carp killed. This happened because one
of the hotel’s gardeners did not turn off the water supply to a man-made pond
after it had been refilled.
Page 4 of 9
QUESTION 4
Bob, a journalist employed by the Local Record newspaper, was conducting
research into football players accepting bribes to lose important matches. He
had been given a tip that a leading player for Melchester United was involved in
bribery. Last week Bob attended a Premier League match played between rivals
Melchester United and Highbury FC at Melchester’s ground. The following events
occurred:1. Jack, a Highbury player, reacted angrily when he was refused a penalty and
kicked the ball into the crowd. The ball hit Tim, a Melchester supporter, on the
head and Tim required hospital treatment.
2. A spectator Guy suffered injury when a piece of masonry fell onto him from the
roof of the newly constructed stand which had only been opened the week
before. He too needed hospital treatment.
3. At the end of the match, a Melchester supporter, Simon, was held by Robert,
one of the Melchester stewards, who had wrongfully identified him as a l
troublemaker. Simon was detained for an hour in a small dressing room before
being released with an apology.
4. Bob wrote a story in the Local Record the following day under the heading
“football bribes scandal”. He accused Donny, a Melchester player of accepting
£100,000 to lose the match. Donny had received £100,000. Unknown to Bob it
had come legally from the sale of a flat Donny owned. Donny has always spoken
out against corruption in football and has been held up as a role model for young
footballers.
5. A senior politician George Smith accused Donny of bringing the game into
disrepute in a speech in the House of Commons
Discuss whether any torts have been committed, who the potential
defendants are and whether any defences will be available to these
defendants.
Page 5 of 9
CASELIST
You may use any cases to support your answers and are not
limited to the ones attached.
Vicarious Liability and independent contractors
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans [1952]
N v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2006]
Century Insurance Co v N I Road Transport Board [1942]
Limpus v London General Omnibus Company [1862]
Smith v Stages 1989
Poland v Parr [1927]
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]
Warren v Henly’s Ltd [1948]
Lloyd v Grace Smith Co [1912]
Mattis v Pollock (t/a Flamingo’s Nightclub) (2003)
Salsbury v Woodland [1970]
Tarry v Ashton [1876]
Defences
Condon v Basi [1985]
ICI v Shatwell [1964]
Arthur v Anker [1996]
Smith v Baker [1891]
Wooldridge v Sumner [1963]
Hall v Brooklands [1933]
Froom v Butcher [1976]
Nettleship v Weston [1971]
Owens v Brimmell [1977]
Pitts v Hunt [1990]
Morris v Murray (1990)
Haynes v Harwood [1935]
Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959]
Crossley v Rawlinson [1981]
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation [1995]
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981]
Cross v Kirkby [2000]
Occupiers Liability
Wheat v Lacon [1966]
The Calgarth [1927]
Roles v Nathan [1963]
Salmon v Seafarers Restaurants [1983]
Page 6 of 9
Ogwo v Taylor HL [1988]
Darby v National Trust [2001]
Cotton v Derbyshire 1994
Haseldine v Daw [1941]
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945]
Wells v Cooper [1958]
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)
Jolley v Sutton [2000]
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955]
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
White v St Albans Times 1990
Keown v Coventry healthcare [2005]
Revill v Newberry [1996]
Nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, Trespass to Land
A G v PYA Quarries [1957]
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997]
St Helens v Tipping [1865]
Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003]
Cunard v Antifyre [1933] 1 KB 551
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 820
Spicer v Smee [1946]
Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961]
Bridlington v YEB [1965]
Robinson v Kilvert [1889]
Christie v Davy [1893]
Leakey v National Trust [1980]
Mint v Good [1951]
Miller v Jackson [1977]
Kennaway v Thompson [1980]
Sturges v Bridgeman [1879]
Vaughan v Taff Vale [1843-60]
Dymond v Pearce [1972]
Tarry v Ashton [1876]
Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
Cambridge Water & Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994]
Read v Lyons [1947]
Perry v Kendricks [1956]
Transco PLC v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]
Hickman v Maisey [1900]
Bernstein v Skyviews & General [1977]
Page 7 of 9
Trespass to the Person
Fowler v Lanning [1959]
Letang v Cooper [1964]
A v Hoare [2008]
Stephens v Myers [1840]
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council [1958]
Meering v Graham White [1919]
Murray v Ministry of Defence, [1988]
Bird v Jones [1845]
Robinson v Balmain [1910]
Thompson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1998]
Lane v Holloway[ 1968]
Wilkinson v Downton (1897)
Secretary of State v Wainwright (2003)
Animals
Draper v Hodder [1972]
Gomberg v Smith [1963]
Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus [1957]
Cummings v Grainger [1977]
Curtis v Betts [1990]
Kite v Napp 1982
Mirvahedy v Henley [2003]
Clark v Bowlt[2006]
Page 8 of 9
Defamation
Youssoupoff v MGM [1934]
Monson v Tussauds [1894]
Byrne v Dean [1937]
Morgan v Odhams Press [1971]
Capital Counties Bank v Henty [1882]
La Fanu v Malcolmson 1848
Cassidy v Daily Mirror 1929
Newstead v London Express[1940]
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1963]
Page 9 of 9