LSE: Tort Law Paper

Aria, a professional cyclist, is training on a public road when she is struck by a van driven negligently by Ben, an employee of Courier Co Ltd, who runs a red light while distracted by his company-issued mobile phone. Aria suffers a severe spinal injury and, while being treated in hospital, contracts a serious infection due to a junior nurse's failure to follow sterilisation protocols. The infection causes permanent nerve damage that her doctors confirm would not have occurred but for the breach of protocol. Advise Aria as to her potential claims in negligence, addressing duty of care, breach, causation, remoteness, and the potential liability of Courier Co Ltd as employer. Consider also whether Aria's decision to cycle without a helmet (not legally required) will affect her recovery.

Clara owns a semi-detached house. Her neighbour, Derek, allows a large Japanese knotweed infestation on his land to spread roots under Clara's foundations, causing structural cracking. Derek also regularly burns garden waste in the evenings, producing thick smoke that drifts into Clara's home three or four nights a week, making it impossible for her family to use the garden or open windows. Clara's teenage son, Sam, who lives with her, suffers an asthma attack triggered by the smoke and requires hospitalisation. Derek argues he has burned waste in his garden for twenty years and that Clara's family are 'unusually sensitive'. Advise Clara and Sam on their claims in private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, addressing any defences Derek may raise.

Eliot, a freelance journalist, investigates a story about alleged financial fraud at MegaCorp plc. He publishes an article in a national newspaper stating that MegaCorp's CEO, Frances, 'has been embezzling company funds for years and is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.' In fact, MegaCorp is under investigation but Frances personally is not, and the allegation of embezzlement is unsubstantiated. Frances sues Eliot and the newspaper in defamation. The newspaper argues the article is protected by the Reynolds/Responsible Journalism defence, now codified in the Defamation Act 2013. Eliot separately argues the statement about the SFO investigation was substantially true. Advise Frances on her prospects of success, addressing the defences available to the defendants.

"The Caparo three-stage test has become an obstacle to the coherent development of negligence, providing an illusion of structure while delivering only judicial discretion." Critically evaluate this claim, with reference to the case law on duty of care including the Supreme Court's reconsideration of the test's role in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018].

"The tort of negligence has failed to develop a coherent and principled approach to liability for pure psychiatric injury. The arbitrary distinctions between primary and secondary victims, and the restrictive control mechanisms imposed on secondary victims in Alcock, produce injustice without doctrinal justification." Critically evaluate this claim.