iamanengine wrote: » Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?
Sunflowers8 wrote: » Anyone know if, when you finally pass all the FE1s and get a letter to prove so, whether it shows the ones you failed/were absent for? Like my results letter this week showed I was absent for Tort in March, will my final letter say the same?
20082014 wrote: » Hi guys, In relation to question 7 March 2016- would you consider tommy a trespasser or a recreational user? The sample answer I have isn’t that great, it doesn’t even state what category of entrant he is! I would think trespasser as there are signs up forbidding being in the water which would mean that this wouldn’t be classified as a recreational activity if it is forbidden - any help would be greatly appreciated on this. Thank you!
iamanengine wrote: » If public nuisance were to come up in the exam would you still apply the same rules as a private nuisance? Interference with use and enjoyment, unreasonableness and all that? I don't know if public nuisance ever comes up but would be good to know just in case
Aoibhin511 wrote: » It came up in Q3 March '16 with RvF, and yeah its the same principles, I'm even using the same cases, but that could be a gamble
YcL wrote: » Hi all Tort Question 1 March 2017, just wondering would anyone know what tort you would advise on. Im just confused on how you would approach it. Any insight greatly appreciated!
Hiya1234 wrote: » I would start by enquiring whether the coach had a duty of care towards to Sam. Run through those principles, whether he breached that standard of care. Then by declaring he was negligent, I would then focus on vicarious liability - is the school liable for the negligence of the coach. Could also throw in employers liability - was the coach acting within scope/course of employment or on a frolic of his own by ignoring the protocol of having the team doctor examine Sam. I think - open to correction???
spygirl wrote: » Actually given the amount of new cases on it, VL could be a good shout to make an appearance. He regularly complains students don't understand it so could throw it in for this year for the craic.
DUMSURFER wrote: » I couldn't ask you, or anyone, what new cases there are for VL? Working solo off a manual that's a few years old. I have the topic learnt but not trying to lose out on good marks for not being totally up to date, if I can avoid it
Iso_123 wrote: » Hey I was wondering if anyone could help me out with the above question! When I read it the torts that came to my mind were public nuisance/negligence(Tony's negligence) but as the question specifically asks for Laura's liability I would have also thought that an analysis of vicarious liability would be appropriate. The problem is that question 5 of the same paper is on vicarious liability and I wouldn't have thought there would be 2 questions involving the same tort so I'm thinking I must be wrong somewhere.. Any help would be appreciated!
Fe119 wrote: » Does anyone have a link to the night before video for EU for last time? I'm assuming there isn't one this time
law_struggles wrote: » For Employment Liability / Product Liabilty Qs, can you go through the Duty of Care and Standard of Care tests like you would for other negligence questions? It feels like they're applicable for various questions, I don't want to risk repeating myself in the exam. Thanks
Lawgrad101 wrote: » Am I right in saying that we don’t have to drop in our EU legislation the day before this time?
Healyjhow wrote: » I feel a bit stupid for asking this question but in a Rylands V fletcher question would accumulation/escape/non natural use of land/ damages all have to be proved for it to constitute a question that falls within Rylands V fletcher ? Just worried I’m going to get the land torts all messed up and start on about nuisance and trespass to land etc
