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:
Friday 21st May 2010
START TIME:
1300
FINISH TIME:
1515
READING TIME:
15 minutes
MATERIALS ALLOWED:
Unmarked Statute book
EXAMINER(S) :
Edmund Fitzpatrick
Chris Morrison
Dr Doug Morrison
Notes for candidates
Answer any TWO questions
A case list is attached to the end of the paper.
Page 1 of 10
QUESTION 1
The Rubicon theatre in London opened with much fanfare in January
2010, after a multi-million pound refit courtesy of National lottery
funding. Although work was a little behind schedule, the theatre
management were determined that the grand opening should go
ahead as several celebrities had been invited and the event had
been given a great deal of publicity. On the opening night certain
events occur.
•
Courtney Cole, a leading female singer and actress, was
injured when the backdrop collapsed on her during her
opening performance. The backdrop had been installed by
Cycloramas Ltd, the previous day.
•
Stevie Ray, a huge fan of Courtney Cole arrived early and
slipped taking his seat and broke his ankle and buckling the
strap on his vintage Rolex watch. Large warning notices,
warning people of slippery floors had been placed at the
entrance to the auditorium.
•
Desmond Daly, a world famous male model was injured whilst
using the new bathroom facilities. He suffered an electric
shock when he went to switch on the wall light. The electrical
contractors, Sparks Ltd, had left bare wires hanging from the
wall.
•
Alice sneaked into the show through the back door, finding
herself in the dark she tripped over a trailing cable breaking
her wrist and smashing the screen on her Iphone.
Advise the management of their rights and liabilities as a
result of these.
Page 2 of 10
QUESTION 2
Although agreeing to be the responsible driver for the lads’ night
out, Steve felt left out of the fun, and decided to mix Vodka with his
own soft drinks unbeknown to his friends. Later that evening he
offered Tracy and Cliff a lift home. Tracy had been out separately
with her girlfriends and was very drunk and could just about stand.
She sat in the front of the car and failed to put on her seatbelt.
Cliff, however, had only just met up with Steve and Tracy as he had
been called to deal with an emergency at work. He was grateful for
a lift home as the last bus had left. He belted up in the rear of the
car.
Whilst driving home Steve lost control of the car and hit a traffic
bollard.
•
Tracy who is 18 suffered severe brain damage as a result of
the collision and will never work again. Moreover her fiancée
left her.
•
Cliff a plumber was killed outright. He was 28 and leaves a
wife Jill and a 2 year old daughter Yvonne,
•
Chris, who witnessed the accident rushed across to help and
in the process tripped on a manhole cover and broke his leg.
Discuss what torts may have been committed, who are the
potential defendants and what defences may be available to
any claims
Page 3 of 10
QUESTION 3
Alan owns a house in a small village which he leases to Jane. Jane
owns 2 large African grey parrots which she keeps in large outdoor
cages in the garden. The parrots squawk loudly most of the day
and night and this annoys her neighbours, Brent and Sandy. Frank,
another neighbour, finds the noise during the day particularly
annoying as he works from home and also has problems sleeping
due to the noise at night.
All the neighbours complain to Jane who does nothing about it.
Sandra therefore decides to light a large bonfire in her garden in the
hope that the smoke will stop the parrots squawking. Fragments
from the fire land on David’s new car which is parked on the road
outside his house and cause damage to the paintwork.
David, meanwhile, who is a DIY enthusiast, normally works in his
shed but decides to work on some shelves every evening in the
house as he knows that this will interfere with the reception of
Jane’s television.
Advise Alan, Brent and Sandy and Frank.
Page 4 of 10
QUESTION 4
Pat, Louise and Sam are work colleagues on a day out at the Leeds
Art Gallery when they see Joanne, an ex colleague with whom they
have a long standing feud. They lock her in the gallery’s toilet.
Unable to get out she screams for help and is released by Larry
some 10 minutes later. Bent on revenge, Joanne sees Sam and
Pat. She pushes Sam into an ornamental fountain and tries to kick
Pat, but in this case completely misses. Louise, thinking she is also
going to be attacked by Joanne, lashes out and knocks Joanne over.
Joanne suffers lacerations to her face and scalp in the fall. The
manager of the Art Gallery Larry is furious by what is going on and
locks the door of the centre allowing no-one out, including 3 people
who are not involved in the events, until the police arrive some 30
minutes later.
Advise Pat, Louise, Sam, Larry and the Sports Centre as to
their rights and liabilities in tort. You are not required to
discuss any possible criminal liability
Page 5 of 10
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 10
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
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]
Read v Lyons [1947]
Perry v Kendricks [1956]
Transco PLC v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
[2004]
Hickman v Maisey [1900]
Trespass to the Person
Fowler v Lanning [1959]
Letang v Cooper [1964]
A v Hoare [2008]
Stephens v Myers [1840]
Page 7 of 10
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 10
Main Bullet Points to Various Questions
Question 1
OLA 57
Common duty of care
Whose in Control
Breach by Cycloramas / Sparks Limited
Claims for personal injury and property damage
Impact of the warning notice on any potential claims
OLA 84
Trespassers-need to establish duty of care s1(3)
Claim for personal injury only
Question 2
• Establish Negligence,
Duty Breach Causation etc
• Defences
Consider defences of contrib. and volenti, Ex turpi causa
• Damages LRMPA, FA Act, pecuniary and non pecuniary losses
• Hopkins v Baker-rescuers
Question 3
• Nuisance-definition of private-who can make a claim Malone v
Laskey, Hunter v Canary v Wharf
• Claims
• Remedies
Question 4
• Trespass to person, Assault Battery and False imprisonment
• Defences
Page 9 of 10
The exam will be marked in order to recognise the following relative
levels of achievement at Level 1:
First class (70%+) – a comprehensive answer, which demonstrates
clear reasoning, good use of a range of materials and a recognition
of the issues and application and problem solving
Upper second class (60-69%) – generally accurate and
comprehensive, with evidence of reasonable research and a firm
grasp of the fundamental principles involved
Lower second class (50-59%) – generally accurate and displaying
an acceptable level of competence. Perhaps overly descriptive and
with minimal development of the arguments presented.
Third class (40-49%) – demonstrating some knowledge but,
perhaps, with key issues missed or an answer which is largely
descriptive.
Page 10 of 10