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

Hiya1234 · 08-08-2020 10:40PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?

Vicarious Liability as well

godfather2 · 08-08-2020 10:41PM

iamanengine wrote: »

Is Morrissey v HSE only relevant for medical negligence or does it apply elsewhere?

Few spots. Good all rounder. Confirms cap on grneral damages, vicarious liability, direct liability, recovery for wrongful death, lost years payments etc.

vid36 · 08-08-2020 10:47PM

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?

No, you just get letter saying you passed the FE1s.No other grades or anything.

08-08-2020 11:08PM

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!

Aoibhin511 · 08-08-2020 11:16PM

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!

Its hard to say which he is, I would be more inclined to say trespasser but you could argue both, and I probably would in an exam. But ultimately the DoC owed is the same so it doesn't really matter which he is except maybe for a contributory negligence argument

LawLover2020 · 08-08-2020 11:18PM

Am I correct in saying that whilst Ms. Morrissey was awarded damages for loss of expectation of life in the HC, this aspect of the HC decision was overturned by the SC?

iamanengine · 08-08-2020 11:19PM

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 · 08-08-2020 11:29PM

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

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

iamanengine · 08-08-2020 11:32PM

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

Nice one thanks. I think that would be fine, the only difference seems to be that the plaintiff has to show special or particular damage so you are probably fine applying the same cases

YcL · 08-08-2020 11:32PM

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 · 08-08-2020 11:36PM

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!

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???

Just realised the frolic bit is vicarious liability and not employers liability - fml haha

08-08-2020 11:37PM

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!

I would answer on vicarious liability as the questions asks to advise the secondary school on liability. I would also probably mention the defence if contributory negligence on sams part as he decided to continue playing. There’s probably more that could be added to this but that’s all I can grasp from it, it’s a tough question I think.

YcL · 08-08-2020 11:43PM

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???

Yes I was thinking also along lines of negligence by coach then school vicariously liable for his actions. Thanks a million for your helpðŸ‘

DUMSURFER · 09-08-2020 09:23AM

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.

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

JCormac · 09-08-2020 09:56AM

For tort,

Does anyone have notes on Public Authority Liability by any chance? It's the only area I'm short on atm.

I can swap notes for any other topic!

Aoibhin511 · 09-08-2020 10:32AM

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

English SC has 2 recent cases, various v Morrisons supermarket (vl for breach of data protection) and Various v Barclays ( vl for sexual assaults) no VL found in either case
And one Irish case Morrissey v HSE, HSE was not vl for lab screw up in cervicalcheck cases but they were in fact directly liable because of the way they adopted and promote cervicalcheck

Iso_123 · 09-08-2020 10:37AM

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!

iamanengine · 09-08-2020 10:47AM

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!

You could probably mention nuisance, VL, concurrent wrongdoers, DOC and causation, seems like it has an intentionally wide scope. Definitely focus on Laura, discussing Tony in terms of liability would probably cost you marks

EAA123 · 09-08-2020 10:47AM

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!

the book i have answers the question in relation to the rylands v fletcher rule and nuisance

question 5 is VL

Fe119 · 09-08-2020 10:54AM

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 · 09-08-2020 11:17AM

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

EmmaO94 · 09-08-2020 11:17AM

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

https://citycolleges.ie/night-before-notes-2020/?utm_source=FE1+NBN+March+2020&utm_campaign=9ec1f684d7-AUTOMATION_Single_welcome_email_1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2cb86d546d-9ec1f684d7-174581077

All here :-)

Fe1student1234 · 09-08-2020 11:35AM

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

I’d mention them but the examiner has stated in reports that students do better when they focus on the actual question rather than a know it all answer. Especially complains with products that’s students choose to go through the whole donoghue v Stevenson decision

Lawgrad101 · 09-08-2020 12:32PM

Am I right in saying that we don’t have to drop in our EU legislation the day before this time?

keelfe1s · 09-08-2020 01:04PM

Lawgrad101 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that we don’t have to drop in our EU legislation the day before this time?

No we don't...They are doing spot checks during exam

IgoPAP · 09-08-2020 01:33PM

Would I be right in saying that the Griffith sample answers is completely guilty of the main issue that the examiner points out - basically an inability to answer the questions asked?

I've been looking at some of the sample answers, and in many of them there's large blocks of text but it only slightly relates to the answer in the closing paragraphs. Surely this gives the wrong impression of how the questions should be answered?

Healyjhow · 09-08-2020 01:38PM

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

Rainbow25 · 09-08-2020 01:41PM

For vicarious liability and the scope of employment and course of employment tests can anyone please explain when you would apply one over the other? Very confused!

Fe1student1234 · 09-08-2020 01:43PM

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

Yes you need to prove all those for rylands to apply

EAA123 · 09-08-2020 01:43PM

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

yes because if you think about it for anyone to rely on the rylands v fletcher rule something that the other person has brought onto the land (accumulation) has to escape in order to cause the damage and it must be something non-natural. If there was no damage a person would not be bringing a claim

hope that helps

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

Comments