GDL Tort Law - Paper 2

Dr Khan, a GP, fails to diagnose meningitis in a child, Lily, during a routine appointment. Lily's mother, Maria, had described Lily's symptoms in detail. Dr Khan prescribes paracetamol and sends Lily home. Six hours later, Lily collapses and is rushed to hospital. She survives but suffers permanent brain damage. An expert witness states that had meningitis been diagnosed at the first appointment, there was a 60% chance of full recovery. Maria, who was present when Lily collapsed, suffers severe depression. Lily's father, Noel, who was abroad on business and learned of the collapse by telephone, also claims for psychiatric injury. Advise Lily, Maria, and Noel on their negligence claims against Dr Khan.

Critically evaluate the defences of contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria in the law of tort. Consider the operation of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the distinction between full and partial defences, and the application of these defences in cases involving road traffic accidents, workplace injuries, and sporting activities. Assess whether the current law achieves a fair apportionment of responsibility.

OfficePark Ltd owns a commercial building. The entrance has a polished marble floor that becomes slippery when wet. Despite previous complaints, OfficePark has not installed anti-slip mats or warning signs. Paul, a client visiting a tenant's office, slips and breaks his hip. Rachel, a window cleaner working at the building, falls from a ladder provided by OfficePark that had a defective rung. Steve, a teenage skateboarder, sneaks into the underground car park after hours and is injured when he falls into an uncovered maintenance pit. OfficePark had placed a sign saying "Private Property — No Entry" at the car park entrance. Advise Paul, Rachel, and Steve on their claims.

Discuss the tort of private nuisance and evaluate its effectiveness as a mechanism for protecting interests in land. Consider the role of locality, the distinction between physical damage and interference with amenity, and the impact of human rights on nuisance law following Coventry v Lawrence (2014). Assess the relationship between nuisance and planning permission, and whether the tort adequately addresses modern environmental concerns.

Tom is employed by WareCo Ltd as a warehouse operative. His supervisor, Uma, regularly assigns Tom to heavy lifting tasks without proper equipment or training, despite Tom's complaints. Tom suffers a serious back injury while lifting a heavy crate. Uma had been warned by the health and safety officer that manual handling procedures were inadequate. During Tom's recovery, his colleague Victor is injured when a forklift operated by Wayne, another employee, reverses into him. Wayne had been drinking during his lunch break. The warehouse manager knew Wayne sometimes drank at lunchtime but took no action. Advise Tom and Victor on their claims against WareCo Ltd.