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

vid36

Witnessing an accident, stadium disasters,fire, horrific scenes in the ER = Nervous Shock
Deliberating causing someone to experience shock induced trauma either as a joke or for other purposes=intentional infliction of emotional distress.

iamanengine

JCormac wrote: »

Completely disregarded the common law in the question. Damn.

Did anyone else go with the 1991 Act only?

I only discussed the Act really, I think it's fine tbh

Lallers96

Agree with some others that overall the papers problem questions were not as straightforward as other years.

I avoided that one with the practical joke like the plague.

I saw a sample before that talked about liability for practical jokes, then on top of that it was at work so potential vicarious liability and then the way it was worded I could see how people could easily get mixed up with nervous shock, although I felt it was the egg shell skull rule he was prodding you for. I could be wrong but that Q looked a stinker

law_struggles

vid36 wrote: »

Witnessing an accident, stadium disasters,fire, horrific scenes in the ER = Nervous Shock
Deliberating causing someone to experience shock induced trauma either as a joke or for other purposes=intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Thats me screwed so ha

iamanengine

vid36 wrote: »

Witnessing an accident, stadium disasters,fire, horrific scenes in the ER = Nervous Shock
Deliberating causing someone to experience shock induced trauma either as a joke or for other purposes=intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Not necessarily, apply the Kelly v Hennessy principles, recognised psychiatric illness, shock induced, by the act/omission of D, result in damage or apprehension of damage, foreseeability. That works perfectly for that Q

You could definitely apply infliction of emotional distress too tho

rightytighty

Lallers96 wrote: »

Agree with some others that overall the papers problem questions were not as straightforward as other years.

I avoided that one with the practical joke like the plague.

I saw a sample before that talked about liability for practical jokes, then on top of that it was at work so potential vicarious liability and then the way it was worded I could see how people could easily get mixed up with nervous shock, although I felt it was the egg shell skull rule he was prodding you for. I could be wrong but that Q looked a stinker

Yeah I went egg shell skull rule because he mentioned the fire in her original home, duty created because she warned him she couldn’t tolerate his behaviour, and then not too remote because once damage foreseeable in type but not extent liability imposed (he wanted to scare her) ,threw in special damages because she couldn’t work and had a medical team, and general damages for pain and suffering

HappyKitten62

I feel like once you have your case law, legislation, and some analysis - you’re over the mark. I think you fail because you didn’t do 5 qs or didnt answer what was asked.

Lallers96

Lallers96 wrote: »

Agree with some others that overall the papers problem questions were not as straightforward as other years.

I avoided that one with the practical joke like the plague.

I saw a sample before that talked about liability for practical jokes, then on top of that it was at work so potential vicarious liability and then the way it was worded I could see how people could easily get mixed up with nervous shock, although I felt it was the egg shell skull rule he was prodding you for. I could be wrong but that Q looked a stinker

Mentioned eggshell skull rule but also fletcher where it was said his fear wasn’t reasonable so wasn’t too sure how the 2 tied together

Lallers96

Can't wait for the examiners report on that question.

"Candidates would be best advised to answer the question that was asked"

iamanengine

Anyone do the res ipsa Q? Thought that was a beaut

HappyKitten62

When are results out?

What did people say for the defamation essay?

My manual only had 2 cases on social media - the Ugandan man v Facebook Ireland and tansey v Gill

HappyKitten62

iamanengine wrote: »

Anyone do the res ipsa Q? Thought that was a beaut

I did! Very doable

CiaranS93

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I went with false imprisonment, nervous shock and vicarious/ employers liability! Oh god...

Think it is false imprisonment and Infliction of emotional suffering under Trespass. I briefly discussed VL but said it wasnt applicable due to no link to employees work duties and didn't satisfy Salmons test. Could be wrong.

Question 7 anyone? Wrote a page on battery then binned it as I realised it wasn't that

CiaranS93

channing90 wrote: »

What did people say for the question on the cigarette butts, I spoke about private nuisance and causation and wrote a paragraph on Rylands but said it didn’t apply dunno how right or wrong I was, anyone with a better understanding of it?

Nuisance, Negligence and briefly did Trespass to Land

Ianmc97

iamanengine wrote: »

Not necessarily, apply the Kelly v Hennessy principles, recognised psychiatric illness, shock induced, by the act/omission of D, result in damage or apprehension of damage, foreseeability. That works perfectly for that Q

You could definitely apply infliction of emotional distress too tho

that's exactly how I did it. the 5 rules are there if you can satisfy all of them you may have a claim. no rule about witnessing. only that it must be due to contemplated harm to you or someone else. witnessing is covered by 5th rule i.e. is there a duty of care to not cause but in this q its not a secondary victim

CiaranS93

These are my last 2 exams and overall that was definitely the worst. Not because it was particularly hard but because of how confusing the questions were. Even looking at the amount of differing opinions on questions scares me 😂

Lallers96

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What did people say for the defamation essay?

My manual only had 2 cases on social media - the Ugandan man v Facebook Ireland and tansey v Gill

I did Cassidy v Daily Mirror, Tansley v Gill and McKeogh v Facebook & Ors is a good one.

IgoPAP

FANTASTIC paper! Completely chuffed - genuinely couldn't have asked for better. My eyes went wide when I saw a full question of Res Ipsa and Defamation!

Lawgrad101

Will we get these results faster than the usual 6ish weeks?

iamanengine

Ianmc97 wrote: »

that's exactly how I did it. the 5 rules are there if you can satisfy all of them you may have a claim. no rule about witnessing. only that it must be due to contemplated harm to you or someone else. witnessing is covered by 5th rule i.e. is there a duty of care to not cause but in this q its not a secondary victim

Relieved someone agrees with me haha

But yeah think that’s spot on. Questioned allowed you to answer on multiple angles. The facts fit into the Kelly principles perfectly

Trespass to person was also a valid approach.

A very similar question to this was asked in either the March 2019 or October 2019 sitting and I remember people on here saying they got marks for both trespass or nervous shock

iamanengine

Onwards to EU!

nmurphy1441

iamanengine wrote: »

Onwards to EU!

Predictions???

Fitz_95

Did anyone else notice the hilarious Brooklyn 99 references? Jake and Amy, Charles and Terry and Gina in the park? Eoin Quill is clearly a B99 fan

godfather2

iamanengine wrote: »

Relieved someone agrees with me haha

But yeah think that’s spot on. Questioned allowed you to answer on multiple angles. The facts fit into the Kelly principles perfectly

Trespass to person was also a valid approach.

A very similar question to this was asked in either the March 2019 or October 2019 sitting and I remember people on here saying they got marks for both trespass or nervous shock

I did the same, Ns, not VL but possibly employers liability not safe place of work for not dealing with his pranks earlier as he had a history of it.

godfather2

On terry, anyone say not directly liable, but mother could be. Parents directly liable for childs torts, curley v mannion

bobsyourbrief

Thought that was a very fair paper, happy to get five questions done. Hopefully that's the last of the exams for myself (PLEASE!) - this thread was a great support system over the last 18 months or so.

Much appreciated to everyone who chimes in and helps each other. They can be a slippery road at times, but with bit of perseverance and patience you'll get there. Best of luck in EU, stay safe and healthy!

HappyKitten62

godfather2 wrote: »

On terry, anyone say not directly liable, but mother could be. Parents directly liable for childs torts, curley v mannion

I said that!

JCormac

godfather2 wrote: »

On terry, anyone say not directly liable, but mother could be. Parents directly liable for childs torts, curley v mannion

Yep, that's what I said

Lallers96

Fitz_95 wrote: »

Did anyone else notice the hilarious Brooklyn 99 references? Jake and Amy, Charles and Terry and Gina in the park? Eoin Quill is clearly a B99 fan

Not the first time it's happened either! Haha