FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

Jack McCoy

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Does anyone know how to answer Q1 March 2018, the one with the mother and the two boys aged 17. I was thinking it's assumption of negligence for a third party/negligence of children but none of the cases seem to match the facts presented in the problem question. Would love if anyone could help me out here.

Disclaimer: My general negligence questions are going to be quite weak and will be applying common sense, name checking cases where possible.

Saying that, for questions involving children I will be mentioning Carmarthenshire CoCo v Lewis and Bosworth v SSR. I think both cases involved children younger than 17 but the relevance of their age is a judgment call imo.

illy.m

Can someone please confirm that this is correct following Walsh v Jones Land Ltd 2017 - re negligent misstatement - following that case there must be a proximate relationship between pl and def for duty of care to arise? Thank you

iamanengine

illy.m wrote: »

Can someone please confirm that this is correct following Walsh v Jones Land Ltd 2017 - re negligent misstatement - following that case there must be a proximate relationship between pl and def for duty of care to arise? Thank you

For an agent of a seller to be liable to a buyer there must be a special relationship between agent and buyer. In this case the agent was acting specifically for the seller, there was no proximity between buyer and seller. Court noted if there was considerable interaction between buyer and agent such a relationship may arise.

The general rule for NM is that there must a special relationship of proximity between P and D.

Walsh is also authority that a disclaimer can limit liability.

nimcdona

In october 2017 q8 on critically discussing the provisions in relation to concurrent wrongdoing, would anyone have any insights? I'm able to discuss the provisions just struggling to give my opinion on it tbh. Would it just be saying potential unfairness in relation the principle of full responsibility or is there anything else relevant?

Dancing Obsession

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

Edit: you already had Limitations down, I missed it. My list is identical to yours but I am leaving out Employer's Liability.

Does anyone know how to answer Q1 March 2018, the one with the mother and the two boys aged 17. I was thinking it's assumption of negligence for a third party/negligence of children but none of the cases seem to match the facts presented in the problem question. Would love if anyone could help me out here.

Feel free to correct me

Issue
The issue which arises in this scenario is vicarious liability which allows liability to be imposed by virtue of the relationship between third party and the actual wrongdoer, even though the third party may not be at fault.
Is there a relationship akin to employment between Mary and Matthew?
Was the tortious conduct within the scope of that employment?
In the case of Moynihan v Moynihan - the grandmother was vicariously liable to her granddaughter being scalded by the grandmother's daughter on the basis of power in control.
Another recent case is Cox v Minister of Justice where the claimant who was supervising prisoners got injured when 2 bags of rice fell onto her upper back. The prison was held liable.
Applying Moynihan v Moynihan to Mary who has power of control in her house, she is liable for Matthew's actions.
Another question which arises is if the tortious act is within the scope of that employment?
In case Smith v Stages - the defendant sent 2 of his employees to a job some miles away. The employees left work early and were involved in an accident. It was held that it was within the scope of employment.
A bus driver in Limpus v London General Omnibus co raced other buses even though the co had expressly forbidden such activity. Again it was held to be within the scope of employment.
Another case concerning vicarious liability is Elmontem v Nethercross Ltd & Roganstown Golf Club the case concerned an assault on the plaintiff by a fellow employee. The plaintiff was a financial controller and his assailant was a co-employee employed as chef, who committed a battery. In this case it was insufficient to establish cose connection and the employer was not liable for the employee's tortious action.
Curley v Mannion involved a daughter of a driver who opened door of a car and the cyclist got injured. The driver of the car was held to be liable of her action.
Applying the case of Curley v Mannion and the young age of Matthew, Mary might be held liable for his actions.
The action of Mathew playing in the garden would be a natural action that you can do in the garden.
Even though Mary asked Matthew to stop and he replied "You are not the boss of me" she is quite likely to be responsible for his actions applying Limpus v London General Ominbus Co, as even though the bus driver was expressly forbidden to raced other buses, he anyway did it and even though his co made it clear that it was not allowed, was still vicariously liable.
To conclude I will be advising Mary that it is quite likely that she might be vicariously liable for Matthew's tortious act as there is a relationship akin to employment between her and Matthew and Matthew's tortious act has a close connection.

Daly29

Anyone got the October 2018 Criminal Paper and Examiner Reports and/or upto Criminal Grid? Happy to swap material. Have all the usual and up to date on all subjects. Thank you!

Email address is in my profile - will reply with what you are looking for if I can help at all :-)

luimneachabu73

COMPANY

Is it worth learning the question on the Three Changes Made to the Regime on the Registration of Charges

Or is the question now quite unlikely as the new Act has been out for a while?

Thanks

Hamerzan Sickles

iamanengine wrote: »

That makes me feel a bit better, I think we should be well covered.

For your Q, I think it's DOC for Third Parties. Cases like Dorset Yacht Club, Breslan v Corcoran, Ennis v HSE etc

Honestly not sure though. In the examiner report he says "Liability for the actions of others and the issues of control of others in their responsibility."

The mention of control makes me think vicarious liability. As per Moynihan v Moynihan it can extend outside the employer/employee relationship, but doubtful it's that

Jack McCoy wrote: »

Disclaimer: My general negligence questions are going to be quite weak and will be applying common sense, name checking cases where possible.

Saying that, for questions involving children I will be mentioning Carmarthenshire CoCo v Lewis and Bosworth v SSR. I think both cases involved children younger than 17 but the relevance of their age is a judgment call imo.

Dancing Obsession wrote: »

Feel free to correct me

Issue
The issue which arises in this scenario is vicarious liability which allows liability to be imposed by virtue of the relationship between third party and the actual wrongdoer, even though the third party may not be at fault.
Is there a relationship akin to employment between Mary and Matthew?
Was the tortious conduct within the scope of that employment?
In the case of Moynihan v Moynihan - the grandmother was vicariously liable to her granddaughter being scalded by the grandmother's daughter on the basis of power in control.
Another recent case is Cox v Minister of Justice where the claimant who was supervising prisoners got injured when 2 bags of rice fell onto her upper back. The prison was held liable.
Applying Moynihan v Moynihan to Mary who has power of control in her house, she is liable for Matthew's actions.
Another question which arises is if the tortious act is within the scope of that employment?
In case Smith v Stages - the defendant sent 2 of his employees to a job some miles away. The employees left work early and were involved in an accident. It was held that it was within the scope of employment.
A bus driver in Limpus v London General Omnibus co raced other buses even though the co had expressly forbidden such activity. Again it was held to be within the scope of employment.
Another case concerning vicarious liability is Elmontem v Nethercross Ltd & Roganstown Golf Club the case concerned an assault on the plaintiff by a fellow employee. The plaintiff was a financial controller and his assailant was a co-employee employed as chef, who committed a battery. In this case it was insufficient to establish cose connection and the employer was not liable for the employee's tortious action.
Curley v Mannion involved a daughter of a driver who opened door of a car and the cyclist got injured. The driver of the car was held to be liable of her action.
Applying the case of Curley v Mannion and the young age of Matthew, Mary might be held liable for his actions.
The action of Mathew playing in the garden would be a natural action that you can do in the garden.
Even though Mary asked Matthew to stop and he replied "You are not the boss of me" she is quite likely to be responsible for his actions applying Limpus v London General Ominbus Co, as even though the bus driver was expressly forbidden to raced other buses, he anyway did it and even though his co made it clear that it was not allowed, was still vicariously liable.
To conclude I will be advising Mary that it is quite likely that she might be vicariously liable for Matthew's tortious act as there is a relationship akin to employment between her and Matthew and Matthew's tortious act has a close connection.

I'm going to respond to all of you collectively rather than address each of you one-on-one as we are all looking at the same question.

First of all, thanks so much for putting your time and effort into this one, everyone, I was totally lost before your help.

@iamanegine (I assume that's an NMH reference, I was actually fortunate enough to see them the last time they played here, unbelievable show) - I speculated about liability of third parties but because none of the case facts seem in any way identical to those you mentioned I think we can safely rule it out.

@Jack McCoy - I think those would be specific negligence of children actions... but the parent isn't being negligent of the 17 year old, it's more like who is liable for the negligence of the 17 year old so we can rule that out.

@Dancing Obsession - Having read your reasoning and thought it over, I think you're right and I really appreciate you explaining your way through the case facts. So basically Moynihan v Moynihan states that you can be vicariously liable for someone if their actions are within your control, and as it is her place of dominion (the house) then he is technically under her "control" in that way. It's weird to think about it but I get the logic. My question is - is "the playing in the garden" considered to be "within the scope of employment" as playing in the garden is something a 17 year old visitor is supposedly expected to be able to do; and given as she is the adult she has effectively authorised this. This would make sense given the Lynsky example (with her expressly forbidding him from doing something but still being held vicariously liable for it). Thanks again, this question seriously frustrated me a few days ago.

Fe1hayes

Hi just wondering if anyone would have the exam report from the last eu exam ? I have the previous one which I can send on if that's anyway help!

LawGirl3434

Property

Adverse Possession - can anyone clarify for me: is future intended use of relevance when determining if intention/ animus possendi? Jack v Leigh, Cork Corporation v Lynch, Durack Manufacturing v Cosidine and Feehan v Leamy all seem to be saying different things but then endorsing one another?

If anyone could clear it up I would be really grateful

iamanengine

Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »

I'm going to respond to all of you collectively rather than address each of you one-on-one as we are all looking at the same question.

First of all, thanks so much for putting your time and effort into this one, everyone, I was totally lost before your help.

@iamanegine (I assume that's an NMH reference, I was actually fortunate enough to see them the last time they played here, unbelievable show) - I speculated about liability of third parties but because none of the case facts seem in any way identical to those you mentioned I think we can safely rule it out.

@Jack McCoy - I think those would be specific negligence of children actions... but the parent isn't being negligent of the 17 year old, it's more like who is liable for the negligence of the 17 year old so we can rule that out.

@Dancing Obsession - Having read your reasoning and thought it over, I think you're right and I really appreciate you explaining your way through the case facts. So basically Moynihan v Moynihan states that you can be vicariously liable for someone if their actions are within your control, and as it is her place of dominion (the house) then he is technically under her "control" in that way. It's weird to think about it but I get the logic. My question is - is "the playing in the garden" considered to be "within the scope of employment" as playing in the garden is something a 17 year old visitor is supposedly expected to be able to do; and given as she is the adult she has effectively authorised this. This would make sense given the Lynsky example (with her expressly forbidding him from doing something but still being held vicariously liable for it). Thanks again, this question seriously frustrated me a few days ago.

It is a NMH reference! You might be the first person to get that. I seen them in Vicar St. some years back, not sure if that was the same one, one of the best gigs I've been to.

Back on topic: I had a feeling it could be Vicarious Liability but the "relationship akin to employment" test was throwing me off. I assume even though it is not an employer/employee relationship you still apply the tests in the same way.

JCormac

Probably too early for this -

But can anyone confirm that when answering a problem question under Company Law you should be more to the point than (eg) when answering a Criminal or Contract problem Q?

I mean it in the sense of not having to overanalyse the particular actions of the individuals of the problem question - As I remember with Criminal and Contract, discourse regarding the possible motives/intentions of the individuals was a factor to be taken into account. [Eg. Did John mean for it to be an Offer or an Invitation to Treat - Which meant you should analyse his speech.

I just get the impression with Company that it might be less about the intentions of the individuals in the question and more about the actual statutory and case law surrounding the general area that the problem question is about; but maybe (hopefully!) my impression is wrong.


Sorry if that read like garbage; been up all night dreaming of s212's :rolleyes:

iamanengine

iamanengine wrote: »

It is a NMH reference! You might be the first person to get that. I seen them in Vicar St. some years back, not sure if that was the same one, one of the best gigs I've been to.

Back on topic: I had a feeling it could be Vicarious Liability but the "relationship akin to employment" test was throwing me off. I assume even though it is not an employer/employee relationship you still apply the tests in the same way.

To add to this, I just checked my Tort grid, it has Q1 for March 2018 marked down as both DOC and VL so it seems like it welcomed a discussion of both.

rightytighty

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Property

Adverse Possession - can anyone clarify for me: is future intended use of relevance when determining if intention/ animus possendi? Jack v Leigh, Cork Corporation v Lynch, Durack Manufacturing v Cosidine and Feehan v Leamy all seem to be saying different things but then endorsing one another?

If anyone could clear it up I would be really grateful

The way I know it:

Leigh v Jack is the original test the the squatter must put the property to some use contrary to the paper title owners future intended use

The UK did away with that approach in Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran

The Irish courts stuck with it in the case of Cork Corporation v Lynch

Durack Manufacturing Ltd v Considine the courts scrapped Leigh v Jack and what’s required is to prove the squatter shows necessary animus possidendi ie intention to exclude paper title owner and to enjoy the property for themselves

JCormac

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Property

Adverse Possession - can anyone clarify for me: is future intended use of relevance when determining if intention/ animus possendi? Jack v Leigh, Cork Corporation v Lynch, Durack Manufacturing v Cosidine and Feehan v Leamy all seem to be saying different things but then endorsing one another?

If anyone could clear it up I would be really grateful

Sat Property last sitting so my memory might be a bit off, but from what I remember:

The purpose of the differing cases (two different general opinions on the requirement of Animus Possendi) is to show that there's a divergence on opinion on whether it's required or not.

I think the general consensus under IE law is that future intention isn't relevant?


What I did when studying Animus Possendi/Future intention is split the page in two, with one set of (cases) opinions on the left and the other set (of cases) on the right.

If it comes up in a Q just acknowledge that you know both set of opinions and that it's still open for debate in general whether Future intention is necessary or not

Open to correction as it feels like yeet-years ago since I looked at property

luimneachabu73

When you go into the exam room can you start writing down notes on your answer booklet straight away?

i.e. before you can you look at the questions

Daly29

luimneachabu73 wrote: »

When you go into the exam room can you start writing down notes on your answer booklet straight away?

i.e. before you can you look at the questions

No, they'll hand out-the paper and ask everyone to turn over and start at the same time.

LawGirl3434

JCormac wrote: »

Sat Property last sitting so my memory might be a bit off, but from what I remember:

The purpose of the differing cases (two different general opinions on the requirement of Animus Possendi) is to show that there's a divergence on opinion on whether it's required or not.

I think the general consensus under IE law is that future intention isn't relevant?


What I did when studying Animus Possendi/Future intention is split the page in two, with one set of (cases) opinions on the left and the other set (of cases) on the right.

If it comes up in a Q just acknowledge that you know both set of opinions and that it's still open for debate in general whether Future intention is necessary or not

Open to correction as it feels like yeet-years ago since I looked at property

Hey thanks so much yeah I have an authority saying future use not relevant in Ireland but not really sure how to arrive at that point in the essay if you get me, might just bang out all of the mentioned cases and just try to summarize with that last point

LawGirl3434

rightytighty wrote: »

The way I know it:

Leigh v Jack is the original test the the squatter must put the property to some use contrary to the paper title owners future intended use

The UK did away with that approach in Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran

The Irish courts stuck with it in the case of Cork Corporation v Lynch

Durack Manufacturing Ltd v Considine the courts scrapped Leigh v Jack and what’s required is to prove the squatter shows necessary animus possidendi ie intention to exclude paper title owner and to enjoy the property for themselves

Thank you!

supercreative

Does anyone have any idea what the impact of planning permission is on a nuisance (Lanigan v Barry, Coventry v Lawrence)? The section in the manual I have is v confusing and I'm not sure what it means.

20082014

TORT

General Negligence - Duty/ Breach/ Causation
Duty of care - public authorities and affirmative duties
Economic loss
nervous shock
occupiers liability
vicarious liability
employers liability
product liability
trespass to the person
limitation of actions
professional negligence
damages
trespass to land - rylands and Fletcher and nuisance

is there anything else I should cover? really hoping I have enough there to answer 5 questions

user115

Would anyone have a sample answer for summary approval procedure which takes into account table a and c changes? I have other company materials to trade, have really good summaries of main topics

Also would anyone be able to explain the abolition of table A and C? Were they just basically setting out that court order needed to be got to authorize certain activities in table A and C and now all of that can be included in SAP?

PuffleHuffLyra

Anyone willing to share the March 2019 EU paper?

Dancing Obsession

iamanengine wrote: »

To add to this, I just checked my Tort grid, it has Q1 for March 2018 marked down as both DOC and VL so it seems like it welcomed a discussion of both.

I checked that myself and this question is in Trespeass / Nuisance and Rylands column too. So I can say that there could be a discussion re public nuisance and the case of Mullan v Forrester where wall fell onto public highway injuring plaintiff. There is another case re rotten tree from the inside but cannot remember the name.
I exclude Ryands and not really sure re Trespass to land
Comments more than welcome

HappyKitten62

Does anyone else have things still left to learn off? I have a handful of topics in each subject to still learn...starting to worry that most people are already past that stage. My notes are all done but there are still some things to learn off.

Olliepollie

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

Does anyone else have things still left to learn off? I have a handful of topics in each subject to still learn...starting to worry that most people are already past that stage. My notes are all done but there are still some things to learn off.

I'm still learning everything off and in my last sitting I was still learning cases the morning of each exam (and I got my 4)! I think it's totally normal to not have everything learnt off walking into the exams and just hoping on a wing and a prayer that it comes back to you! Haha!

Don't stress it!

HappyKitten62

Olliepollie wrote: »

I'm still learning everything off and in my last sitting I was still learning cases the morning of each exam (and I got my 4)! I think it's totally normal to not have everything learnt off walking into the exams and just hoping on a wing and a prayer that it comes back to you! Haha!

Don't stress it!

Jaysus that’ll be me too!!!! Thanks - I had a feeling it was a last minute cram job. Sure isn’t that always the way!!

Olliepollie

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

Jaysus that’ll be me too!!!! Thanks - I had a feeling it was a last minute cram job. Sure isn’t that always the way!!

Wouldn't be the Fe1s if you didnt have a serious feeling of impending doom hahaha

Aoibhin511

HappyKitten62 wrote: »

Does anyone else have things still left to learn off? I have a handful of topics in each subject to still learn...starting to worry that most people are already past that stage. My notes are all done but there are still some things to learn off.

I only started properly learning off today first exam tuesday, you'll be grand

20082014

TORT

Guys, for tort I am looking at Q.3 March 2016.

I think that Laura wouldnt be liable for Tony's actions - not a special proximate relationship and unforeseeable therefore NAI making Tony liable.

as the question only asks to advise re Laura's liability to Anette, would you discuss Tony's duty/breach/causation then?

I think there is a possible nuisance claim also which Laura will be liable for but I am just stuck as to the liability of third parties aspect.

Any help would honestly be greatly appreciated!