Oxford BA: Negligence & Duty of Care Exam Paper

Dr. Sarah, a qualified surgeon, was rushing to catch a flight for her honeymoon when she witnessed a serious road accident. A motorcyclist lay unconscious with severe head injuries. Several bystanders pleaded with her to help, noting her medical bag in her car. Dr. Sarah hesitated, concerned about missing her flight and potential liability, but eventually provided basic first aid. However, she failed to notice internal bleeding signs that a competent doctor would have spotted, and did not call an ambulance immediately. The motorcyclist died an hour later. Medical evidence suggests that proper immediate treatment could have saved his life. The motorcyclist's family now seeks to sue Dr. Sarah for negligence. Separately, it emerges that the accident was caused by Tom, a delivery driver, who was texting while driving for his employer, QuickCorp. Tom had been repeatedly warned about phone use while driving. Advise all parties on their potential liability in negligence.

Critically evaluate the extent to which the modern law of negligence adequately balances the competing demands of providing compensation to victims of negligence with the need to avoid imposing excessive liability on defendants. In your answer, consider the role of duty of care limitations, policy considerations, and recent judicial and academic approaches to controlling the scope of negligence liability.

Eleanor, a professional architect, designed a new community center for Westborough Council. Due to pressure to meet deadlines and budget constraints, Eleanor failed to properly specify the foundation requirements, despite knowing the building was located on unstable ground. She also incorrectly calculated load-bearing requirements for the main hall roof. Two years after completion, cracks appeared in several buildings adjacent to the community center, caused by subsidence due to the inadequate foundations. Additionally, the roof partially collapsed during a children's concert, injuring fifteen people including young Sophie who suffered permanent hearing loss. Building inspectors found that Eleanor's foundation specifications were grossly inadequate and that any competent architect would have identified the load-bearing problems. Eleanor's professional indemnity insurance has lapsed. The Council, having spent £2 million on repairs, seeks recovery from Eleanor. The injured concert-goers and owners of damaged adjacent properties also wish to sue. Eleanor argues she should not be liable for the property damage as this constitutes pure economic loss, and that the Council assumed responsibility for checking her work. Advise all parties.

To what extent has the development of negligence liability for psychiatric injury achieved an appropriate balance between protecting genuine victims and preventing fraudulent or trivial claims? Critically assess whether the current legal framework, including the distinctions between primary and secondary victims, provides satisfactory solutions to the challenges posed by 'nervous shock' claims.