THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 266 0001 ZB
277 0201 ZB
LLB EXAMINATION
for External Students
PART I EXAMINATION (Scheme A)
SECOND AND THIRD YEAR EXAMINATIONS (Scheme B)
GRADUATE ENTRY LEVEL II (Route A)
GRADUATE ENTRY SECOND AND THIRD YEAR (Route B)
BSc DEGREES
for External Students
MANAGEMENT WITH LAW, LAW WITH MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTING
WITH LAW AND LAW WITH ACCOUNTING FOR STUDENTS IN THE
EXTERNAL PROGRAMME
Law of Tort
Wednesday 20 May 2009 : 10.00 - 1.15 pm
Candidates will have fifteen minutes during which they may read the paper and make
rough notes ONLY in their answer books. They then have the remaining THREE
HOURS in which to answer the questions.
Candidates should answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.
Candidates should answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.
© University of London 2009
UL09/929
Page 1 of 5
1. Sheila, who lives in Australia, came in January 2009 for a two-month visit to
her daughter Ruth and her family in England. She had not seen them for three
years. In February she went to the children’s playground, run by St John’s
Church, with her six-year-old granddaughter Linda. The local council, the
Miserly District Council, had a statutory power to inspect such playgrounds
but had not done so for six years. Linda played on a chute but on one descent
her foot became trapped and she suffered a nasty gash on her ankle. Sheila
managed to extricate her and took her to the Accident and Emergency
Department at the Miserly Hospital. There were many patients waiting
treatment. Hilda, the nurse who first examined Linda, classed her as being of
low priority. Linda was not fully examined for eight hours. By that time
Sheila had telephoned Ruth, who joined them at the hospital. When she was
eventually treated, Linda’s wound was found to have been very badly infected.
The wound did not heal and, to save Linda’s life, it was necessary to amputate
her foot. If she had been seen immediately on arrival, the medical evidence is
that she would have made a complete recovery after a few weeks.
Both Sheila and Ruth have suffered a recognised psychiatric injury.
Advise as to any claims in tort by Linda, Ruth and Sheila.
2. Mr and Mrs Jones were having substantial refurbishment work carried out at
their house by Jerrybuilders Ltd. They went away for a weekend leaving their
17-year-old son Tom at home on his own. They told him that in no
circumstances was he to invite any of his friends into the house. Tom went
out with a group of friends on the Saturday night and took some of them home
with him to play computer games.
One of the friends, Sam, had been playing football that afternoon and, without
asking Tom, decided that he would take a shower. When he turned on the
shower tap, the head of the shower (which had been installed the previous
week by Jerrybuilders) fell off and hit him in the eye causing serious injuries.
Sam had already lost the sight of the other eye as a baby and the injury in the
shower has left him nearly blind.
Tom called an ambulance to attend to Sam. When Una, a paramedic, was
pushing Sam out of the house in a wheelchair to the waiting ambulance, she
fell into a trench alongside the front path. The trench had been dug by
Jerrybuilders and covered with a sheet of metal, which was too flimsy to
support the weight of the wheelchair. Una broke her leg and was off work for
several weeks. Sam did not receive any further injuries.
Advise Sam and Una.
UL09/929
Page 2 of 5
3. Slapdash Construction Ltd was carrying out road maintenance work. One of
its employees, Liam, carelessly severed the electricity cable under the highway
with a mechanical digger. The road is in an isolated rural area and the cable
serves only a very small number of customers including Tumbledown Castle,
the home of Lord Tumbledown.
The incident happened on the Friday before a bank holiday weekend, during
which the castle was to be open to visitors to raise funds for a charity, the
Society of Upright Gentlefolk (SUG), of which Lady Tumbledown is patron.
Lord Tumbledown was advised by health and safety specialists that, because
of the ruinous nature of parts of the castle, it would be dangerous to admit
visitors until power had been restored. (This did not happen until the
following Tuesday.) The castle was therefore closed and Lord Tumbledown
had to refund money to visitors who had purchased tickets in advance.
At the time that power was cut off, Lady Tumbledown had been using a
computer, which is linked to the castle’s database. This causes considerable
damage to the system. Lord Tumbledown has a contract with Megabyte
Computer Specialists (MCS) to maintain the computer system for an annual
fee. As a result MCS have to spend two days restoring the computer system
under the terms of the contract.
Advise Lord Tumbledon, SUG and MCS as to any claims they may have
against Slapdash Construction.
4 ‘My conclusion is that a duty to use care in statement is recognized by English
law, and that its recognition does not create any dangerous precedent when it
is remembered that it is limited in respect of the persons to whom it is owed
and the transactions to which it applies.’ (Candler v Crane, Christmas and Co.
(1951) per Denning LJ.)
Discuss this statement in the light of subsequent developments. Could a judge
express himself in the same words today?
5. ‘Recent decisions concerning vicarious liability were no doubt motivated by a
desire to do justice, but have left the law in an unclear and unprincipled state.’
Discuss.
UL09/929
Page 3 of 5
6. Basil runs Straight to the Ear, a ‘talking newspaper’ for blind people made
available to subscribers as a digital audio file. The audio files are stored on a
website hosted by Superhighway plc, an internet service provider. A new
edition of Straight to the Ear is uploaded every week.
For the last few months, Basil has been running a campaign against Vizaids
Ltd (“the company”), a small private company making and selling goods
designed to assist blind people with everyday tasks. The company is controlled
by its two leading shareholders, Henry and George. Basil dislikes Henry and
George and considers that the company’s products are far too expensive. He
also thinks that the company conducts its business in an exploitative manner.
Last week, Straight to the Ear included the following passage:
It’s well-known to listeners to Straight to the Ear that the people
involved in running Vizaids Ltd are crooked. Their products are over-
priced and are much too expensive for most people with a visual
impairment. However, we’ve now learned something else that is pretty
disgraceful. Their employees are paid only the national minimum
wage.
It is true that two of the company’s long-standing employees are paid only
slightly more than the national minimum wage. However, a number of other
employees are paid significantly more. Henry, George and the company are
threatening to sue Basil and Superhighway plc for defamation over the words
quoted above.
Discuss.
7. Hamish is the chairman of an organisation called the ‘Stop the Nimby
Development Committee’, an organisation determined to stop the construction
of a new bypass round the town. They co-ordinate the activities of
environmental activists (concerned with the effect of the development on
wildlife) and businesses in Nimby (concerned with the effect on their
livelihood). Graft Construction Ltd has been appointed by the Department for
Transport as main contractors for the development. The committee learns that
several local firms, including Trough Ltd and Yuppy Ltd, have submitted
tenders to Graft Construction for various parts of the work and resolves to get
these tenders withdrawn.
Hamish tells Trough Ltd that, if it does not withdraw its tender, none of the
local traders on the committee will ever do business with them again.
Hamish tells Yuppy Ltd that, if it does not withdraw its tender, the
environmental activists will try to block the entrance to Yuppy Ltd’s works so
that no goods can be taken in or out. Yuppy Ltd withdraws its tender.
As a result of these withdrawals Graft Construction cannot start work on the
proper date and incurs contractual penalties to the Department for Transport.
Advise as to any possible claims in tort.
UL09/929
Page 4 of 5
8. A charitable company, Second Chance Ltd, has recently opened Eskdale, a
residential home for ex-offenders, in a large house at the centre of Brownville,
a small commuter village. The company has planning permission for this use
of the property. The first residents at Eskdale are all men who have served
lengthy periods of imprisonment for very serious crimes. Local residents fear
that these residents will cause personal injury and damage in the village at
some point, although no such injury or damage has yet occurred.
Last month, the company held the annual Second Chance Ball at Eskdale. This
caused significant problems for the other residents of Brownville. For a
weekend, roads within the village were very congested and residents found
difficulty in driving in and out of the village. Furthermore, on the night of the
Ball, music was played at high volume, disrupting the sleep of Brownville’s
residents.
The company has obtained planning permission for, and erected, a wind
turbine to generate electricity for Eskdale. When the turbine is running, it
produces a very high-pitched sound, which is imperceptible to humans, but is
very disturbing for dogs. Roderick’s boarding kennels have lost a great deal of
business as a result.
Last week, during a storm, one of the blades of the turbine blew off and landed
on the home of Janice, a resident of Brownville. As a result, Janice suffered
serious injuries. Scientific investigations have failed to discover the cause of
the accident. The construction, assembly and maintenance of the turbine
appear to have been in accordance with most advanced practice.
Consider whether the above facts disclose any potential actions in nuisance
and/or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
END OF PAPER
UL09/929
Page 5 of 5
