LAW SCHOOL
SUMMATIVE TIMED ASSESSMENT COVERSHEET
SECTION 1 - TO BE COMPLETED BY STUDENT
STUDENT NUMBER:
2 1 3 5 7 9 2
(7 digits, available on StudentInfo and the back of your Ucard)
YEAR OF STUDY: 1 UNIT TITLE: TORT UNIT CODE: LAWD10011
DATE DUE: 12/05/22
1st QUESTION ANSWERED: Q1 WORD COUNT: 1448
2nd QUESTION ANSWERED: Q3 WORD COUNT: 1496
BY SUBMITTING THIS WORK ONLINE USING MY UNIQUE LOG-IN AND PASSWORD I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE
TIMED OPEN BOOK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES CONCERNING SUBMISSION PROCEDURES, THAT THIS SUBMISSION IS
ENTIRELY MY OWN WORK, AND THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PLAGIARISED MATERIAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT
MAY BE SUBMITTED TO TURNITIN PLAGIARISM DETECTION SOFTWARE.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR WORK IN WORD
All students have access to Word via free Office 365 software from the University here. Give yourself sufficient time
to transfer your work to Word if you are using different software.
PENALTIES
You will incur a penalty if you go over the word count.
LATE SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
LAW SCHOOL
, SUMMATIVE TIMED ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK
Marker’s brief comments
1st Question answered: Mark:
Comment
2nd Question answered: Mark:
Comment
Actual overall mark for this paper: Nearest overall mark for this paper
on the Bristol Scale:
Please note that this mark is provisional and does not include any penalties (if applicable). The mark is subject to
internal and external moderation, and subsequent approval by the School and Faculty Examination Boards.
Finalised grades will be published on MyBristol.
, Hawk may be able to make a claim against Ram and Wren for injuries he suffered at
the event and against the hospital for his permanent disability under the tort of
negligence.
Hawk v Ram and Wren
For an ordinary case such as this, the courts will look to find a recognised category of
duty of care (Robinson). As both Ram and Wren are considered competitors, it is
usually the case that the standard of care is lower as participants are understood to
be acting in ‘the heat of the moment’ which is extended to
‘horseplay’ (Galloway). However, this does not mean there is still not a standard of
care that exists between competitors (Caldwell).
Following Caldwell, this means they will be held to an objective reasonable standard
of care (Blythe) to avoid causing injury in all the circumstances within the rules of
the game. Therefore, both Ram and Wren will be judged on what the reasonable
person would have done in the circumstances of this sport. When considering the
circumstances, the courts will set the standard based on the level at which the sport
is played (Condon v Basi). As this was a “national” competition it is likely to be
considered that the reasonable standard of care Ram and Wren have towards Hawk
is higher than that compared to a local competition but not as high as if it were an
international competition like the Olympics for example. Under Watson, it may be
argued that the standard of care for the defendants is lowered because the event
holder must ensure that competitors are kept safe during sporting events. However,
the event holders did specifically state on the event tickets that no flashes on
photographs were allowed. Therefore, if Ram and Wren are found to have acted
below this standard, they will be considered to have breached their duty towards
Hawk.
To establish whether there was a breach of duty will be proven on the balance of
probability based on breach factors. The cost of running the risk must exceed the
cost of avoiding the risk for the defendants to be considered in breach and
negligent. Bolton established that the risk of injury and its potential severity (if high)
would constitute liability. In this case, it is likely to be considered that the
foreseeability of a risk being created by a flash was obvious as it can be distracting
and in Hawk’s case stunning. Therefore, the severity of injury that may occur when
someone is performing a dangerous move on a skateboard and is stunned by not
only one flash but two are considered serious. It may also be argued that both
defendants had a ‘reckless disregard' for safety (Wooldridge) as contestants, they
can appreciate the same risk. This is balanced against the defendants' burden of
taking precautions and the cost of avoiding the risk (Latimer). The first
considerations outbalance the cost of them taking a picture without a flash. This is
dependent on what kind of camera they have or if they were taking a photo on their
phones. Therefore, both Ram and Wren are likely to be found in breach of their duty.
Next, it must be shown that the defendant's breach caused Hawk’s harm. Using the
‘but for’ test (Barnett), but for both Ram and Wren using a flash would Hawk had
fallen. However, each defendant may argue that the other is more liable than
themselves. McGhee as developed by Fairchild established that where the injuries
are indivisible, there are multiple sources of a single agent which causes uncertainty
between which source caused the harm (rock of uncertainty) the defendant had
materially increased the risk of damage. Even though Hawk’s injuries are not caused
by a lung infection, it was stated in Zurich that the Fairchild principle is not limited to
this specific type of case. This was aided by the application of the principle
SUMMATIVE TIMED ASSESSMENT COVERSHEET
SECTION 1 - TO BE COMPLETED BY STUDENT
STUDENT NUMBER:
2 1 3 5 7 9 2
(7 digits, available on StudentInfo and the back of your Ucard)
YEAR OF STUDY: 1 UNIT TITLE: TORT UNIT CODE: LAWD10011
DATE DUE: 12/05/22
1st QUESTION ANSWERED: Q1 WORD COUNT: 1448
2nd QUESTION ANSWERED: Q3 WORD COUNT: 1496
BY SUBMITTING THIS WORK ONLINE USING MY UNIQUE LOG-IN AND PASSWORD I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE
TIMED OPEN BOOK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES CONCERNING SUBMISSION PROCEDURES, THAT THIS SUBMISSION IS
ENTIRELY MY OWN WORK, AND THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PLAGIARISED MATERIAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT
MAY BE SUBMITTED TO TURNITIN PLAGIARISM DETECTION SOFTWARE.
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR WORK IN WORD
All students have access to Word via free Office 365 software from the University here. Give yourself sufficient time
to transfer your work to Word if you are using different software.
PENALTIES
You will incur a penalty if you go over the word count.
LATE SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
LAW SCHOOL
, SUMMATIVE TIMED ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK
Marker’s brief comments
1st Question answered: Mark:
Comment
2nd Question answered: Mark:
Comment
Actual overall mark for this paper: Nearest overall mark for this paper
on the Bristol Scale:
Please note that this mark is provisional and does not include any penalties (if applicable). The mark is subject to
internal and external moderation, and subsequent approval by the School and Faculty Examination Boards.
Finalised grades will be published on MyBristol.
, Hawk may be able to make a claim against Ram and Wren for injuries he suffered at
the event and against the hospital for his permanent disability under the tort of
negligence.
Hawk v Ram and Wren
For an ordinary case such as this, the courts will look to find a recognised category of
duty of care (Robinson). As both Ram and Wren are considered competitors, it is
usually the case that the standard of care is lower as participants are understood to
be acting in ‘the heat of the moment’ which is extended to
‘horseplay’ (Galloway). However, this does not mean there is still not a standard of
care that exists between competitors (Caldwell).
Following Caldwell, this means they will be held to an objective reasonable standard
of care (Blythe) to avoid causing injury in all the circumstances within the rules of
the game. Therefore, both Ram and Wren will be judged on what the reasonable
person would have done in the circumstances of this sport. When considering the
circumstances, the courts will set the standard based on the level at which the sport
is played (Condon v Basi). As this was a “national” competition it is likely to be
considered that the reasonable standard of care Ram and Wren have towards Hawk
is higher than that compared to a local competition but not as high as if it were an
international competition like the Olympics for example. Under Watson, it may be
argued that the standard of care for the defendants is lowered because the event
holder must ensure that competitors are kept safe during sporting events. However,
the event holders did specifically state on the event tickets that no flashes on
photographs were allowed. Therefore, if Ram and Wren are found to have acted
below this standard, they will be considered to have breached their duty towards
Hawk.
To establish whether there was a breach of duty will be proven on the balance of
probability based on breach factors. The cost of running the risk must exceed the
cost of avoiding the risk for the defendants to be considered in breach and
negligent. Bolton established that the risk of injury and its potential severity (if high)
would constitute liability. In this case, it is likely to be considered that the
foreseeability of a risk being created by a flash was obvious as it can be distracting
and in Hawk’s case stunning. Therefore, the severity of injury that may occur when
someone is performing a dangerous move on a skateboard and is stunned by not
only one flash but two are considered serious. It may also be argued that both
defendants had a ‘reckless disregard' for safety (Wooldridge) as contestants, they
can appreciate the same risk. This is balanced against the defendants' burden of
taking precautions and the cost of avoiding the risk (Latimer). The first
considerations outbalance the cost of them taking a picture without a flash. This is
dependent on what kind of camera they have or if they were taking a photo on their
phones. Therefore, both Ram and Wren are likely to be found in breach of their duty.
Next, it must be shown that the defendant's breach caused Hawk’s harm. Using the
‘but for’ test (Barnett), but for both Ram and Wren using a flash would Hawk had
fallen. However, each defendant may argue that the other is more liable than
themselves. McGhee as developed by Fairchild established that where the injuries
are indivisible, there are multiple sources of a single agent which causes uncertainty
between which source caused the harm (rock of uncertainty) the defendant had
materially increased the risk of damage. Even though Hawk’s injuries are not caused
by a lung infection, it was stated in Zurich that the Fairchild principle is not limited to
this specific type of case. This was aided by the application of the principle
