*BUY THIS AS PART OF THE TORT SEMINAR BUNDLE FOR £4.00* This was the seen problem question I answered in my Tort of Negligence exam. In this particular question I achieved an 1:1 (82%). This may help you to see how to structure a Duty of Care/Psychiatric Harm Problem Question.
1. Your advice is sought in relation to the following incidents:
(a) Several weeks ago PC Wiggum arrested Snake in connection with a series of robberies perpetrated
against restaurants in Mallardshire. When PC Wiggum was putting Snake in the back of a police car,
he carelessly failed to lock the door. When the car stopped at a traffic light on its way to the police
station, Snake escaped. The following night, Snake broke into the Double R Diner owned by Norma.
Snake caused substantial property damage and seriously injured Norma. Norma’s brother, Terry,
discovered Norma on the kitchen floor and rang for an ambulance. The call handler said: ‘Please
don’t worry, Terry, the ambulance is on its way’. It took over an hour for the ambulance to arrive, by
which time Norma’s injuries had significantly worsened. Snake’s whereabouts are currently
unknown. Terry has suffered from depression after these events and has recurring flashbacks of that
night, including intense feelings of helplessness from watching his sister in distress while they waited
for an ambulance.
Advise Norma and Terry.
(b) Following an acrimonious break-up, Fry began to send letters and text messages to Leela
threatening her personal safety. Leela called the police one evening after receiving a threatening
telephone call from Fry. She told the call handler that Fry sounded drunk and she was worried he was
going to kill her. The call handler decided not to prioritise Leela’s call and requested that police
officers attend her house within 24 hours. Fry broke into Leela’s home that evening and punched her
repeatedly in the side of the head.
Leela took a taxi to the local accident and emergency (A&E) department at Mallardshire Hospital.
The hospital receptionist told Leela that she would be assessed within an hour by a nurse or doctor,
but that she might not get a full examination for up to four hours. The receptionist added that Leela
would be better off going home and ‘self-medicating’ with a bottle of whisky and then making an
appointment to see her GP (General Practitioner) the next day. Leela agreed and went home. The next
morning, she visited her GP, who sent her to hospital. X-rays revealed that Leela had a haematoma
(blood clot) on the brain. If she had received medical treatment shortly after her first visit to A&E, her
condition would have been far less serious.
Advise Leela.
Introduction
There are three requirements for a claim to succeed in the tort of negligence: a legal duty of care; a
breach of that duty by the defendant (D); causing damage to the claimant which is not ‘too remote’.
Section A raises questions of whether PC Wiggum owes a duty to Norma, and whether the ambulance
service owes a duty to Norma and to Terry. Section B concerns whether the call handler owes a duty
to Leela, and whether the hospital receptionist also owes a duty to Leela.
Section A
Norma
PC Wiggum’s failure to lock the door constitutes nonfeasance. Lord Gough in Smith v Littlewoods
stated that nonfeasance is ‘an omission or mere failure to prevent harm from arising’, and the general
rule for this is that there is no liability. Police omissions and failure to protect was an issue raised in
Michael v CC of South Wales Police, where it was held that there was no duty of care due to the
ordinary exceptions for omissions not being sufficed. There are four exceptions, the first is where D
voluntarily undertakes responsibility (Barrett), this is not applicable to the scenario as PC Wiggum
has not voluntarily undertaken any responsibility for Norma. The second exception is where a
relationship exists between Cl and D, as shown in Reeves (Gaoler to prisoner), Lewis (parent to child),
and Charlton (employer to employee). This, again, is not applicable to the scenario as PC Wiggum
does not have a special relationship with Norma. Thirdly, a relationship of control between D and a
third party will give rise to an exception. This exception was present in the Dorset Yacht case, this
Alle Vorteile der Zusammenfassungen von Stuvia auf einen Blick:
Garantiert gute Qualität durch Reviews
Stuvia Verkäufer haben mehr als 700.000 Zusammenfassungen beurteilt. Deshalb weißt du dass du das beste Dokument kaufst.
Schnell und einfach kaufen
Man bezahlt schnell und einfach mit iDeal, Kreditkarte oder Stuvia-Kredit für die Zusammenfassungen. Man braucht keine Mitgliedschaft.
Konzentration auf den Kern der Sache
Deine Mitstudenten schreiben die Zusammenfassungen. Deshalb enthalten die Zusammenfassungen immer aktuelle, zuverlässige und up-to-date Informationen. Damit kommst du schnell zum Kern der Sache.
Häufig gestellte Fragen
Was bekomme ich, wenn ich dieses Dokument kaufe?
Du erhältst eine PDF-Datei, die sofort nach dem Kauf verfügbar ist. Das gekaufte Dokument ist jederzeit, überall und unbegrenzt über dein Profil zugänglich.
Zufriedenheitsgarantie: Wie funktioniert das?
Unsere Zufriedenheitsgarantie sorgt dafür, dass du immer eine Lernunterlage findest, die zu dir passt. Du füllst ein Formular aus und unser Kundendienstteam kümmert sich um den Rest.
Wem kaufe ich diese Zusammenfassung ab?
Stuvia ist ein Marktplatz, du kaufst dieses Dokument also nicht von uns, sondern vom Verkäufer Danimillie. Stuvia erleichtert die Zahlung an den Verkäufer.
Werde ich an ein Abonnement gebunden sein?
Nein, du kaufst diese Zusammenfassung nur für 3,67 €. Du bist nach deinem Kauf an nichts gebunden.
