Cambridge BA: Tort Law Paper

Arabella owns a riding school in rural Cambridgeshire. One afternoon, she instructs her stable hand, Dmitri, to repair a fence along the perimeter of the paddock before the afternoon lesson. Dmitri, who is employed full-time by Arabella, decides instead to use that time to complete a private fencing job for a neighbour, borrowing Arabella's tools without permission. While driving Arabella's van to the neighbour's property, Dmitri negligently collides with a cyclist, Priya, causing her severe leg injuries. Priya cannot recover from Dmitri, who is uninsured and insolvent. Arabella denies liability on the ground that Dmitri was acting entirely for his own purposes and outside the scope of his employment. Separately, during the afternoon riding lesson, one of Arabella's horses, 'Thunder', breaks free from a poorly maintained gate — the same one Dmitri was supposed to fix — and gallops onto the adjacent public road, causing a motorist, Kwame, to swerve and crash. Arabella argues she had no knowledge that Thunder had any propensity to escape. Advise Priya and Kwame as to any tortious claims they may have. [25 marks]

Dr Osei is a consultant cardiologist at Whitmore NHS Trust. He performs a routine coronary stent procedure on his patient, Margaret, aged 67. Before the operation, Dr Osei explains the principal risks of the procedure, including a 1% risk of stroke, but does not mention a 0.5% risk of a rare but recognised complication — perforation of the coronary artery — which, if it occurs, is almost always fatal. During surgery, a perforation occurs and Margaret suffers catastrophic brain damage, leaving her in a minimally conscious state. Her daughter and litigation friend, Beatrice, brings a claim in negligence. Additionally, Margaret had asked Dr Osei before signing the consent form whether she could consider having a less invasive medication-only treatment rather than surgery. Dr Osei told her that surgery was 'the only realistic option' without elaboration, which was factually incorrect: a medication programme was clinically appropriate for a patient of Margaret's profile and carried a far lower risk of fatal complications. Two specialist cardiologists later confirmed that, had Margaret been informed of this alternative, she would in all probability have chosen the medication route. Advise Beatrice as to the prospects of a claim in negligence against Dr Osei and Whitmore NHS Trust. [25 marks]

Fenwick & Co is a specialist roofing contractor. It is engaged by Helton Developments Ltd, a property developer, to re-roof a large commercial building. Fenwick subcontracts a portion of the roofing work to an independent contractor, Paulo. Paulo's employees, working on the roof, negligently dislodge a heavy tile which falls onto the pavement below, striking Ingrid, a pedestrian, who suffers a broken collarbone and significant psychological trauma diagnosed as PTSD. A year later, Ingrid, who had been a high-earning barrister, discovers that because of ongoing PTSD she can no longer return to practice. Her psychiatric report attributes the PTSD to the accident. Helton Developments Ltd argues it bears no liability as Paulo was an independent contractor. Fenwick argues its liability is limited to the physical injury and does not extend to the psychiatric harm or the substantial loss of earnings. Separately, Oliver, a fellow barrister who witnessed the tile strike Ingrid from the opposite side of the street, did not suffer any physical injury but develops a recognised psychiatric condition, adjustment disorder with anxious mood, six weeks after the incident. Advise Ingrid and Oliver as to their respective claims in tort. [25 marks]

'The decision in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] destroyed any prospect of a principled and unified duty of care framework in English negligence law, replacing coherent principle with unguided incrementalism.' Critically evaluate this claim, with particular reference to the development of the duty of care in cases involving omissions, pure economic loss, and psychiatric harm.

'The tort of private nuisance has historically protected property interests at the expense of personal well-being, and the courts have consistently failed to adapt it to the needs of modern claimants. The Human Rights Act 1998 and its incorporation of Article 8 ECHR offer a more coherent and rights-based alternative.' Discuss with reference to the case law on private nuisance, public nuisance, and the Rylands v Fletcher rule.