Cambridge BA: Negligence: Duty of Care Exam Paper

Dr. Sarah Williams, a consultant psychiatrist at Riverside NHS Trust, is treating Michael, a patient with severe paranoid schizophrenia who has previously made violent threats. During a consultation, Michael explicitly states he intends to kill his neighbour, James, claiming James is 'monitoring him through the walls.' Dr. Williams documents this threat but decides against sectioning Michael under the Mental Health Act, believing his medication regime will control his symptoms. She does not warn James or the police. Two weeks later, Michael attacks James with a knife, causing severe injuries requiring extensive surgery and leaving James permanently disabled. James discovers that three other psychiatrists at the Trust had recommended Michael's immediate detention, but Dr. Williams overruled their advice. Additionally, it emerges that Dr. Williams had been working excessive hours due to staff shortages and had recently been reprimanded for poor record-keeping. James also learns that the Trust's own guidelines required immediate risk assessment protocols for patients making specific threats, which were not followed. The Trust's insurance company argues that Dr. Williams was acting outside her authority and scope of employment when she overruled her colleagues. Advise James on his prospects of success in a negligence claim against both Dr. Williams and Riverside NHS Trust.

Precision Engineering Ltd manufactures industrial cutting equipment. In January 2023, they develop a new laser cutting machine, the LaserPro X5000, designed for small manufacturing businesses. During internal testing, engineer Tom Davies discovers that the machine's safety guard can fail under certain temperature conditions, potentially causing severe burns. Tom reports this to his supervisor, but the company decides to proceed with launch, believing the risk is minimal and that additional testing would delay their product by six months, allowing competitors to gain market advantage. The company includes a general warning in the manual stating 'ensure adequate ventilation' but does not specify the temperature-related safety guard issue. In March 2023, FastBuild Manufacturing purchases a LaserPro X5000. The company's managing director, Peter Thompson, assigns operation of the machine to Jake Morrison, a recent apprentice with limited experience. No formal training is provided beyond giving Jake the manual to read. The machine is installed in FastBuild's poorly ventilated workshop, where summer temperatures regularly exceed 35°C. In July 2023, during a particularly hot day, the safety guard fails while Jake is operating the machine. Jake suffers severe burns to his hands and arms, requiring multiple skin grafts and leaving him permanently scarred with limited mobility in his left hand. Investigation reveals that Precision Engineering was aware of similar failures in their previous LaserPro X3000 model but had not disclosed this to customers. Additionally, FastBuild had removed the machine's temperature monitoring system to save space, though this was not clearly prohibited in the manual. Advise Jake on his potential negligence claims against both Precision Engineering Ltd and FastBuild Manufacturing.

"The decision in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] represents a welcome return to orthodox Donoghue v Stevenson principles and signals the retreat of the restrictive Caparo test." Critically analyse this statement with reference to the development of duty of care in tort law.

"The concept of assumption of responsibility has become an incoherent and unprincipled basis for establishing duty of care relationships." Discuss with particular reference to cases involving economic loss and psychiatric injury.