Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…136137139141142…334

Comments

  • #4142
    vid36
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭vid36


    Lallers96 wrote: »
    Keyword, advice. No student who has been preparing for this exam, and spend a great deal of time, effort and money is going to stop going. If I was coming from Kildare I'd simply say I wasn't living there despite my ID showing that address. We've all signed forms to say we don't have COVID and we will be wearing masks from a 2m distance.

    The regulation is being signed into law.It is not just advice.We cannot ignore SIs that we don't like.


  • #4143
    Hamerzan Sickles
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭Hamerzan Sickles


    Also, your "usual suspects" remark was rather disparaging - maybe accusing people of baseless hysteria would have landed better if, you know, just over an hour ago there hadn't been lockdown announced for the midlands.


  • #4144
    spygirl
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭spygirl


    Anything new in Products liability to be aware of for Tort?


  • #4145
    Jenosul
    Registered Users Posts: 118 ✭✭Jenosul


    Hamerzan Sickles wrote: »
    Yes, it's a 1% fatality rate or lower but more and more evidence is coming out from longitudinal studies that people with even mild cases or the corona virus are ending up with post-corona conditions such as cardiac problems, lung problems, insomnia, chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and more. The truth of the matter is that there is so much we do not know about the virus - honing in on its fatality rate alone is a tragic misstep that too many people are making.

    I really want to get my exams over with like everyone else and I will go in. In March I felt very uncomfortable with lower rates recorded but went in to get it not to lose a chance and isolated myself after the exam as I am living with a family member who is high risk. It doesn’t seem fair that alternative arrangements are in place for other big exams such as the accounting and Kings Inn,


  • #4146
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    spygirl wrote: »
    Anything new in Products liability to be aware of for Tort?

    Don't think so, I have nothing very recent anyway


  • Advertisement
  • #4147
    dobby896
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭dobby896


    Lallers96 wrote: »
    I'm from Mayo so I'm not affected. But if someone from Kildare wants to go to this exam, nobody will stop them. This is extremely vital for some people's future jobs and lives. This is essential to them.

    As you said, you're from Mayo, not from Kildare, Offaly or Laois. It is highly unfair of you to condemn people for what you consider "baseless hysteria" when people in those counties are more than justified in their worry. Many of those candidates could be immunocompromised themselves or live with immunocompromised persons or healthcare workers.

    Yes, these exams are essential, of course they are but they are not considered essential as per the regulations. Therefore, many other institutions have put exams online/made alternative arrangements. This is a public health crisis, it is much bigger than each of us as individuals. You may downplay the significance of the virus but for some people it is a massive risk.


  • #4148
    spygirl
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭spygirl


    Does anyone have a quick synopsis, case note on Green v Hardiman? In the alternative can anyone confirm I'm right below.

    Superior Courts confirmed that he should be compensated, notwithstanding the argument that he was SB? Clock didn't start to run against him until he knew there was a cause of action? IE when he got back the report in 2012 not when the hernia etc kicked off. So it's very fact specific


  • #4149
    vid36
    Registered Users Posts: 589 ✭✭✭vid36


    There are 3 possible outcomes in my view
    1 Exams proceed without people living in Kildare, Laois and Offaly.
    2.Exams are cancelled
    3.Sitting academic examinations is added to the list of essential travel
    Just ignoring the SI and public health regulations will not happen.


  • #4150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ok so for tort I have:

    Negligence
    Hedley Byrne
    Pure Economic Loss
    Prof neg
    Occupiers liability
    Rylands v fletcher
    Nuisance
    Trespass
    Defamation
    Defences
    Remedies

    What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

    I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!


  • #4151
    Lallers96
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Lallers96


    dobby896 wrote: »
    As you said, you're from Mayo, not from Kildare, Offaly or Laois. It is highly unfair of you to condemn people for what you consider "baseless hysteria" when people in those counties are more than justified in their worry. Many of those candidates could be immunocompromised themselves or live with immunocompromised persons or healthcare workers.

    Yes, these exams are essential, of course they are but they are not considered essential as per the regulations. Therefore, many other institutions have put exams online/made alternative arrangements. This is a public health crisis, it is much bigger than each of us as individuals. You may downplay the significance of the virus but for some people it is a massive risk.

    If you read my comment I did not say people from the 3 counties are baseless in their worry.

    I said people were baseless in their fear mongering that the exams will be cancelled.

    For people who it is a massive risk to they will obviously make the decision themselves not to go and I never stated I had any issue with that.

    It seems you are reading what you would like to read and argue about rather than what is in front of you.


  • Advertisement
  • #4152
    Fe1student1234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 220 ✭✭Fe1student1234


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ok so for tort I have:

    Negligence
    Hedley Byrne
    Pure Economic Loss
    Prof neg
    Occupiers liability
    Rylands v fletcher
    Nuisance
    Trespass
    Defamation
    Defences
    Remedies

    What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

    I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!


    I’ve done all that ( except for defamation ) plus passing off, vicarious Liability employers Liability, products Liability and parties to tort actions


  • #4153
    ahhhhhFE1s
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭ahhhhhFE1s


    spygirl wrote: »
    Does anyone have a quick synopsis, case note on Green v Hardiman? In the alternative can anyone confirm I'm right below.

    Superior Courts confirmed that he should be compensated, notwithstanding the argument that he was SB? Clock didn't start to run against him until he knew there was a cause of action? IE when he got back the report in 2012 not when the hernia etc kicked off. So it's very fact specific

    s.3(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 introduced a discoverability element for personal injury claims, now time starts to run the moment the cause of action accrues or the date of knowledge if later.

    Green v Hardiman allowed that date of knowledge was when he received the expert report and signified an important development in relation to date of knowledge considerations and thus limitation of actions

    Nothing much different that what you have but hopefully helps you understand!


  • #4154
    Aoibhin511
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Aoibhin511


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ok so for tort I have:

    Negligence
    Hedley Byrne
    Pure Economic Loss
    Prof neg
    Occupiers liability
    Rylands v fletcher
    Nuisance
    Trespass
    Defamation
    Defences
    Remedies

    What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

    I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!

    Think Employers is more likely than products, also hoping for passing off as its usually a lovely q


  • #4155
    spygirl
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭spygirl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ok so for tort I have:

    Negligence
    Hedley Byrne
    Pure Economic Loss
    Prof neg
    Occupiers liability
    Rylands v fletcher
    Nuisance
    Trespass
    Defamation
    Defences
    Remedies

    What else should I cover? Employers or product liability? Both? Passing off?

    I’m going on city colleges manual if anyone’s chapters coincide... I’ve never covered so many topics before and am worried about not remembering them all! Also worried about not being able to identify the relevant topics in a question, or being left short because there’s multiple topics in a question!

    Go through your case lists and see if you have any heavy lifters in there? ie cases that can cover a few topics for you. I'm taking in Morrisey for Professional Neg, Vicarious liability, awards for wrongful death, capping of awards. Can reduce it down for you quite a bit.

    If you can swing the three you mentioned, might be no harm. H eis known for multiple topics in a question. Would look at liability for others as well, eg kids, animals etc. Short and sweet generally. Basic outline of them, main cases etc, just to be covered.


  • #4156
    dobby896
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭dobby896


    Lallers96 wrote: »
    If you read my comment I did not say people from the 3 counties are baseless in their worry.

    I said people were baseless in their fear mongering that the exams will be cancelled.

    It seems you are reading what you would like to read and argue about rather than what is in front of you.

    I'm not reading what I would like to read at all nor am I arguing with you, I think it is just unfair to accuse people of fear mongering when this is, in reality, a huge fear for some people.

    I also never said you referred to people from those 3 counties specifically, we have no idea where anyone who is posting is from, they could very well be from those 3 counties and they would, as I said, be justified in their concern.


  • #4157
    Lallers96
    Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭Lallers96


    dobby896 wrote: »
    I'm not reading what I would like to read at all nor am I arguing with you, I think it is just unfair to accuse people of fear mongering when this is, in reality, a huge fear for some people.

    I also never said you referred to people from those 3 counties specifically, we have no idea where anyone who is posting is from, they could very well be from those 3 counties and they would, as I said, be justified in their concern.

    Of course it is a valid fear but what purpose does it serve to spread that fear here?

    Do the same people that always seem to be saying "it'll be cancelled I'm telling ya" know something we don't? No. So it adds nothing to this thread or conversation. Neither does this discussion to be honest so I'll leave it at that because really if I wanted to talk about the virus I'd go to a virus thread. I think we should leave this thread for what it is intended for and let people get advice or answers for the exam, and in the event there is an official announcement then fair enough let it be discussed here.

    The spreading of fears, while valid personal fears reminds me of auld lads sharing WhatsApp messages back in February saying there'd be a full scale lockdown from me buddy's wifes cousin who works for the government.


  • #4158
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    spygirl wrote: »
    Does anyone have a quick synopsis, case note on Green v Hardiman? In the alternative can anyone confirm I'm right below.

    Superior Courts confirmed that he should be compensated, notwithstanding the argument that he was SB? Clock didn't start to run against him until he knew there was a cause of action? IE when he got back the report in 2012 not when the hernia etc kicked off. So it's very fact specific

    Green v Hardiman - P had an operation in December 2007, his bowel was accidentally perforated which went undiscovered. He became ill, had further surgeries and developed a hernia. He got a new surgeon who did not have the earlier hospital notes. P consulted a solicitor in 2011 and a report was received from an expert in 2012. The report gave evidence that the failure re the bowel perforation was the cause of subsequent problems. Proceedings issued in August 2012. P claimed the date of knowledge was 3 May 2012, the date of the expert report. The earlier advice, which P had relied on, was incorrect so time did not run. C held time ran in May.


  • #4159
    dobby896
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭dobby896


    Lallers96 wrote: »

    Do the same people that always seem to be saying "it'll be cancelled I'm telling ya" know something we don't? No. So it adds nothing to this thread or conversation. I think we should leave this thread for what it is intended for and let people get advice or answers for the exam, and in the event there is an official announcement then fair enough let it be discussed here.

    The spreading of fears, while valid personal fears reminds me of auld lads sharing WhatsApp messages back in February saying there'd be a full scale lockdown from me buddy's wifes cousin who works for the government.

    That's fair, this thread should definitely left to assist people taking the exam.

    All I'll say is that the situation is very fluid and all we can do it sit, wait and hear.

    Good luck in your exams!


  • #4160
    eastwestlad
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭eastwestlad


    Tort

    Was mentioned previously but can't find out clarified it, what's the cap on damages figure?


  • #4161
    ahhhhhFE1s
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83 ✭✭ahhhhhFE1s


    eastwestlad wrote: »
    Tort

    Was mentioned previously but can't find out clarified it, what's the cap on damages figure?

    general damages €500,000 as per Morrissey v HSE as far as I know


  • Advertisement
  • #4162
    eastwestlad
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭eastwestlad


    Unrelated matter

    Anyone willing to sell their Criminal manual or swap for another subject ?

    DM if interested.

    Thanks.

    Mod
    Pls do not use this forum for swapping nor selling manuals etc


  • #4163
    LawLover2020
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭LawLover2020


    Hi all,

    I have a quick question in relation to disclaimers in Occupiers’ Liability.

    Am I correct in saying the law can be summarised as follows:

    S. 5 of the Occupier Liability Act 1995 provides that an occupier may restrict or modify his statutory duties towards entrants on his premises. Any such restriction must be reasonable in the circumstances. Where this restriction occurs through notice, the occupier is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention entrant. This can normally be done by placing the notice prominently on the entry point to the premises. S.5 also provides that an occupier cannot exclude or restrict liability towards the entrant in such a manner as would allow him to intentionally injure the entrant or his property. The nature of the warning must be such as to allow the entrant to avoid the danger on the premises.

    I guess I’m wondering if the rules on disclaimers apply to entrants as a whole? Or, are there different rules concerning disclaimers for visitors/recreational users/trespassers?

    Thanks in advance.


  • #4164
    HappyKitten62
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭HappyKitten62


    LawLover2020 wrote: »
    Hi all,

    I have a quick question in relation to disclaimers in Occupiers’ Liability.

    Am I correct in saying the law can be summarised as follows:

    S. 5 of the Occupier Liability Act 1995 provides that an occupier may restrict or modify his statutory duties towards entrants on his premises. Any such restriction must be reasonable in the circumstances. Where this restriction occurs through notice, the occupier is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention entrant. This can normally be done by placing the notice prominently on the entry point to the premises. S.5 also provides that an occupier cannot exclude or restrict liability towards the entrant in such a manner as would allow him to intentionally injure the entrant or his property. The nature of the warning must be such as to allow the entrant to avoid the danger on the premises.

    I guess I’m wondering if the rules on disclaimers apply to entrants as a whole? Or, are there different rules concerning disclaimers for visitors/recreational users/trespassers?

    Thanks in advance.

    Basically, you can modify or restrict your duty owed under section 5 but can never restrict the duty owed to a visitor below that owed to a recreational user and trespasser - not to intentionally injure or act with reckless disregard to their safety. I think this applies to all entrants as you can’t absolve yourself of liability completely! Hope this helps.


  • #4165
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    Am I right in saying that the EU is a signatory to the ECHR although it doesn't technically form part of EU law?

    Or is it the case that all member states of the EU are signatories?


  • #4166
    Aoibhin511
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Aoibhin511


    iamanengine wrote: »
    Am I right in saying that the EU is a signatory to the ECHR although it doesn't technically form part of EU law?

    Or is it the case that all member states of the EU are signatories?

    yeah Art 6 (2) TEU says so


  • #4167
    iamanengine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭iamanengine


    Aoibhin511 wrote: »
    yeah Art 6 (2) TEU says so

    I know 6(2) says the EU shall accede but it hasn't actually acceded yet due to exceptions raised by the ECJ, so it's in some kind of weird middle ground...if my understanding is correct!


  • #4168
    EmmaO94
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭EmmaO94


    Anyone know if we're due any Night Before materials for the August sitting? I always find the videos especially helpful but fear we might have to do without this time?!


  • #4169
    LJones18
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭LJones18


    Does anyone have any advise on distinguishing topics for Qs, I'm finding it had to know how I will know if a Question is on Nuisance, or if is Rylands and Fletcher? Does Rylands and Fletcher come up very often?


  • #4170
    Hiya1234
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Hiya1234


    LJones18 wrote: »
    Does anyone have any advise on distinguishing topics for Qs, I'm finding it had to know how I will know if a Question is on Nuisance, or if is Rylands and Fletcher? Does Rylands and Fletcher come up very often?

    If anything escapes from property then you would apply Rylands.

    Majority of times Nuisance comes up! It has been a couple of sittings since Rylands came up - I think!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #4171
    Fedone
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭Fedone


    Heads up for anyone who hasn’t done exams in the RDS before, the traffic heading for ballsbridge at 9am on a weekday has always been awful (not sure if Covid has helped this but I’m assuming it’s hasn’t to be on the safe side). If you’re driving I would definitely advise leaving earlier and sitting in the car park to look over notes, have a coffee, etc. Has saved me so much stress being there super early instead of sitting in traffic worrying about making it there in time


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement