Tort Problem Question: Luke had just obtained his driving licence and borrowed his father’s car to take his girlfriend Jane on a trip to the coast. Luke and Jane got into the car whilst Jane’s mother Amy saw them off from the balcony of her flat. Jane turned around in the front seat to wave to her mother. To do so she took off her safety belt and twisted around. Luke was trying to show off by pulling away at such a high speed that he left black tyre marks on the road. He got distracted by Jane’s movement and because he was travelling so fast, he lost control of the car, and it crashed into the pavement and a tree. Jane was flung through the windscreen and obtained multiple broken bones and severe lacerations to her face. Luke, who was wearing his seatbelt, suffered only a few bruises. Jane will have to undergo extensive cosmetic surgery and the doctors told her that although they would do the best they can, there was unfortunately no way she would be able to continue pursuing her dream of becoming a fashion model. Jane was due to sign, the day after the crash, a modelling contract which would have earned her £2million. Because of her injuries she now cannot pursue this. Amy, Jane’s mom, saw the whole accident from the balcony of her flat. Seeing her teenage daughter flung through the windscreen of the car and then severely injured gave her a massive shock. She became so depressed that she had to stop working as a primary school teacher. Her GP diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder. Advise Luke as to his possible liability and defences in negligence.

Tort Law

Tort Law Tort is a legal term that is defined as a breach that is committed against another party where the injured party can sue for damages. In tort law, the damages are measured in the extent of the injury. Compensatory damages like damages of property, reimbursement of Read More …

Module code and title: LW4004 Legal Method & Skills Review the passage below and then correct the referencing and citations by using footnotes. You should also correct the formatting of quotations and include a bibliography. Note: You are not required to comment on the actual content of the following passage, which has been drafted to provide practice in footnote referencing, formatting quotations, and writing a bibliography correctly. Passage: Save for contracts to create of transfer interests in land, which are required to be in writing (as per the 1989 Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act, section 2 subsection 1), the traditional view is that there are only three requirements for a valid contract in English law; an agreement, an intention to create legal relations and consideration from both parties. In Currie v Misa (1875 LR10 Ex 153) Justice Lush stated at para. 162 “a valuable consideration in the sense of the law, may consist of either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.” The doctrine of consideration is the embodiment of the idea that English Law will only enforce bargains, not mere promises that are given ‘for free’. Each party must ‘give’ or ‘provide’ something in return for the promise given otherwise there is no enforceable contract. As Ewan Mckendrick points out in Contract Law, Text Cases and Materials (Chapter 5 , p147) consideration is an important distinguishing feature between contract law in civil jurisdictions and common law jurisdictions. However, this clearly does not justify the doctrine and there are plenty who would question the place of the doctrine in the modern law. In an article entitled ‘Judicial reform of privity and consideration’ (Journal of Business Law, November 1986 , 466-473. Para. 466 & 467), Edward Jacobs offered two fundamental criticisms that are arguably still a problem today. First, the law as stated in textbooks and in some of the judgments in the area do not reflect how it would actually be applied in the courts. Secondly, even if this was not the case and the law was applied in accordance with the doctrinal theory, it would still not work satisfactorily. Ewan Mckendrick (as per the reference above) highlights 5 criticisms of the doctrine: (i) it narrows down too far the scope of promises that can be enforceable, (ii) it has become too technical, (iii) it has become divorced from commercial reality, (iv) it is difficult to reconcile with modern theoretical models of contract law and (v) that it is over-broad and its work could be done by more specific doctrines (such as duress). One example of the problem of the doctrine becoming too technical is in the area ‘Pre-existing duties’. Although the traditional view that an obligation already owed to someone cannot be good consideration (Stilk v Myrick (1809)) seems clear, subsequent cases have muddied the waters. Williams and Roffey [1991] is perhaps the best example of how the law has developed in an unsatisfactory, over complicated way. In Williams, Mr Williams was already under a contractual obligation to Roffey Bros. (Roffey) to carry out carpentry works as part of more general renovation works relating to several flats, but due to financial difficulties could not complete them. To ensure that they were completed on time (which was important to Roffey) Roffey agreed to pay an additional sum per flat on top of the original agreed price. Accordingly, Williams did not appear to be giving anything in return for this new promise by Roffey but still sought damages for money he said he was owed as a result of the agreement to pay an additional amount. As stated by Anne Street on the University of London International Programmes Undergraduate Laws Programme blog (http://laws.londoninternational.ac.uk/2014/12/29/consideration-part-2/ accessed on 15th September 2016), ‘any good law student given the facts of Williams v Roffey Bros would have made a reasonable conclusion that the claim by Mr Williams was doomed to failure’ . However (clearly to the surprise of those law students) Williams was found to have conferred a ‘practical’ benefit in agreeing to complete the contract on time, despite the fact that this was a pre-existing obligation. As a result the law has become unclear as to what will and what won’t be a ‘practical’ benefit for the purpose of valid consideration. In defence of the doctrine M Chen-Wishart justifies the requirement of consideration as a reaction to ‘our deep instinct for reciprocity; an instinct which enhances co-operation and division of labour, whilst preserving the social equilibrium…. By requiring the reciprocation to be explicit, the consideration doctrine keeps the state away from the private domain where external coercion would distort the practice of gift-giving and so destroy much which is valuable about it’ As long ago as 1937 that the Law Revision Committee suggested the doctrine of consideration should be significantly re-considered (6th Interim Report of the Law Revision Committee (statue of frauds and the doctrine of consideration), Cmnd. 5449 (1937) and despite the arguments of a few academics, to my mind the case for change is stronger now given more recent developments in the law and in commercial practices than it was in 1937. It is also clear from the non-binding treaty on the Principles of European Contract Law that the direction of travel in the commercial world outside of England and Wales is away from a requirement of consideration. For example, the treaty provides at Art. 2:101(2) provides that ‘a contract is concluded if: (a) the parties intend to be legally bound, and (b) they reach a sufficient agreement, without any further requirement.

‘In my view, the time has come to recognise the legal duty of the police force to take action to protect a particular individual whose life or safety is, to the knowledge of the police, threatened by someone whose actions the police are able to restrain. I am not convinced that this requires a development of the common law but, if it does, I am sanguine about that prospect. Certainly, I do not believe that rules relating to liability for omissions should inhibit the law’s development to this point’. (Lord Kerr in his dissenting judgment in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) UKSC 2) Discuss the extent to which the police owe a duty of care to individuals in the tort of negligence.

Tort Problem Question: Luke had just obtained his driving licence and borrowed his father’s car to take his girlfriend Jane on a trip to the coast. Luke and Jane got into the car whilst Jane’s mother Amy saw them off from the balcony of her flat. Jane turned around in the front seat to wave to her mother. To do so she took off her safety belt and twisted around. Luke was trying to show off by pulling away at such a high speed that he left black tyre marks on the road. He got distracted by Jane’s movement and because he was travelling so fast, he lost control of the car, and it crashed into the pavement and a tree. Jane was flung through the windscreen and obtained multiple broken bones and severe lacerations to her face. Luke, who was wearing his seatbelt, suffered only a few bruises. Jane will have to undergo extensive cosmetic surgery and the doctors told her that although they would do the best they can, there was unfortunately no way she would be able to continue pursuing her dream of becoming a fashion model. Jane was due to sign, the day after the crash, a modelling contract which would have earned her £2million. Because of her injuries she now cannot pursue this. Amy, Jane’s mom, saw the whole accident from the balcony of her flat. Seeing her teenage daughter flung through the windscreen of the car and then severely injured gave her a massive shock. She became so depressed that she had to stop working as a primary school teacher. Her GP diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder. Advise Luke as to his possible liability and defences in negligence.

Leonard and Sheldon are scientists who share a flat, No 1, on the ground floor of an apartment building. Neither of them owns a car, but their apartment has a parking space assigned to it. Sheldon rented the flat first, and Leonard subsequently moved in with him. When Leonard moved into the flat, he agreed to sign a ‘Roommate Agreement’, which sets out the terms under which he is allowed to live there. One provision is that, if Leonard fails to observe certain rules, Sheldon is entitled to lock Leonard in his bedroom as punishment for an entire weekend. Last weekend, Leonard broke one of the rules and Sheldon enforced the punishment clause. Leonard used his bedroom window to come and go without Sheldon knowing. Will has recently moved into the same building as Leonard and Sheldon, in flat No 4. Will owns a motorcycle, and, rather than parking it in his assigned space, he decides to park it in Leonard and Sheldon’s space, so that he can chain it to a lamppost. He parks it in their space for the first time on Sunday. Sheldon notices that the motorcycle has appeared in their space, but does not know who owns it. He therefore writes the following note: ‘Your bike is in my spot. You cannot park it there. Remove it immediately.’ Will sees the note when he returns home on Monday evening. He picks it up and reads it but, believing that the note is unnecessarily rude, does not remove the motorcycle. On Tuesday, Sheldon sees that the note has been removed, but that the motorbike remains. Sheldon therefore writes another note: ‘Your bike is still in my spot. Remove it. Or else.’ Sheldon also places posters around the building urging action against ‘The Phantom Parker’. Will finds the second note and sees the posters. He feels threatened, but still does not remove the vehicle. Sheldon believes that the owner of the bike is probably Zack, who moved into the apartment building at the same time as Will, but into a different flat. He spends the rest of the week posting letters through Zack’s letterbox, accusing him of the being the ‘Phantom Parker’, and repeatedly knocks on Zack’s door to challenge him. Zack has since developed a very rare psychiatric condition as a result of these events, which has left him unable to work for the past two months. In December, Leonard and Sheldon host a Christmas party in their apartment. They invite their friends Howard, Bernadette, Raj and Penny. Bernadette is Howard’s girlfriend and Penny is Leonard’s girlfriend: both women are blonde. At the party, David, one of Leonard’s colleagues, walks past Penny, brushing his hand against her arm. He does the same thing two more times. On each occasion, Penny shouts ‘Stop it!’ Later in the evening, David sees a blonde woman standing under some mistletoe. Thinking that it is Penny, he goes up behind her and whispers in her ear, ‘Are you sure you don’t fancy a kiss?’ The woman is actually Bernadette, who jumps with surprise. She turns around and tries to throw her drink at David: however, David ducks out of the way and the liquid lands on Raj. Howard goes up to David and shakes his fist, saying ‘If you had kissed my girlfriend, I would have punched you.’ Advise the parties as to any potential tort liabilities arising from these facts.

Problem Question: Jock has bought a new motorcycle, a 1,450cc Harley Davidson, having traded in his 50cc scooter, and decides to go and show his friend, Julia. She is very impressed with the large and shiny bike and asks for a ride, but unfortunately, neither she nor Jock have a crash helmet for her; she is insistent, and Jock finally gives in and, against his better judgement, agrees to let her ride pillion. Once on the road, however, he starts to speed up and is oblivious to her asking him to slow down as the wind makes it difficult to hear her. They reach a stretch of road where there are a lot of trees and bends, but Jock does not slow down as they come round a blind bend at Cotterell Farm, where the farmer, Mr Cotterell, is crossing the road with his small grandson, Nick. Jock hits the brakes, swerves, and misses them, but crashes through the drystone wall. Julia is thrown from the bike and suffers severe head injuries and bruising to the body, Jock is only bruised. Mr Cotterell and Nick were unhurt, however Mrs Cotterell rushes out of the farmhouse, sees the bike and runs towards it, thinking her grandson and husband have been injured. As she crosses the road without stopping to look, a car, being driven at nearly 70 mph by Penny, swerves but cannot avoid her and she is killed instantly. Penny’s car runs into a wall, is badly damaged and she suffers a broken arm. Advise the different parties as to their tortious liabilities.