GDL Tort Law - Paper 3

AlphaChem Ltd operates a chemical plant near a residential area. A pipe ruptures, releasing toxic fumes that drift over the neighbourhood. Residents suffer various injuries: Wendy develops a rare lung condition; Xavier, who has a pre-existing respiratory condition, suffers a severe asthma attack requiring hospitalisation; Yolanda's prize orchids are destroyed by the chemical fallout; and Zara, who is three miles away but sees news footage of the incident, suffers severe anxiety. The pipe ruptured due to corrosion that would have been detected by routine inspections, which AlphaChem had neglected. AlphaChem argues that the type of chemical released had never previously been known to cause lung conditions. Advise all claimants, considering negligence, nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, and the thin skull rule.

The law on psychiatric injury remains unsatisfactory and in urgent need of reform. Critically evaluate this statement by reference to the primary/secondary victim distinction, the Alcock control mechanisms, and recent developments. Consider the Law Commission Report No 249 and whether the restrictive approach to secondary victims is justified by floodgates concerns or represents an unprincipled denial of recovery.

BluePrint Architects Ltd negligently designs a leisure centre for CityCouncil. The design contains a structural flaw that goes undetected during construction by the building contractor, QualiBuild Ltd. Five years after opening, a section of the roof collapses during a public swimming session. Alan, a swimmer, is struck by debris and suffers spinal injuries rendering him paraplegic. Betty, a lifeguard employed by CityCouncil, sustains broken ribs while pulling Alan from the pool. Colin, Alan's partner, arrives at the leisure centre 30 minutes after the collapse and sees Alan being stretchered into an ambulance, suffering PTSD. The leisure centre is closed, causing the neighbouring cafe owner, Diana, to lose £50,000 in business over six months. Advise all claimants, identifying all potential defendants and discussing any contribution claims between them.

Critically assess the measure of damages in tort. Evaluate the distinction between compensatory and non-compensatory damages, the principles governing assessment of future losses, and the use of periodical payments orders. Consider the discount rate controversy, the assessment of loss of amenity and pain and suffering, and whether the current system adequately compensates catastrophically injured claimants. Discuss the Judicial College Guidelines and their role in promoting consistency.

NightOwl Ltd runs a nightclub. The club employs bouncers from SecureForce Ltd, an independent security company. Eddie, a bouncer, uses excessive force ejecting a customer, Francesca, breaking her arm. Inside the club, Grant slips on a spilled drink on the dance floor and suffers a knee injury. A barman, Hakim, serves drinks to an obviously intoxicated customer, Ian, who then drives home and causes a road accident injuring Jade. The club's fire exit is blocked by stored equipment, and during a fire alarm (which proves to be a false alarm), patrons are delayed evacuating and Kieran suffers a panic attack and trampling injuries. Advise all claimants and consider NightOwl's potential liability for each incident, including vicarious liability and occupiers' liability issues.