Essay Framework for Evaluation Questions – Section B’s, Q.3 (25 marks)
10 marks AO1 DESCRIBE 15 marks AO3 EVALUATE
Point of Law AO1 Description of the law AO3 Issue/Criticism AO3 Justified? AO3 Unjustified?
Which area of the law Brief description of this area of What is the current The statement made above is The statement made above
specified in the question are law problem with this area of justified because…. may not be justified/fair
you going to talk about? E.g. Include cases/statutes the law? because….
remoteness
1. In Nettleship v Weston a It may be unfair for Harsh for someone new to a For the injured/damaged
Learner status is irrelevant learner driver was expected someone inexperience skill/ job to be judged to such a party the fact that they are a
to drive at the standard of to be tested at such a high status. It is unfair for learner is irrelevant. They will
someone qualified high standard someone unexperienced as it still want compensation and
is expected that they will make should be able to claim for
mistakes their loss
2. More careless behaviour is Unfair that someone It is unfair that someone may Emergency services don’t
Social utility acceptable in an may be seriously not be able to claim if they get need to worry about claims
emergency (Watt v HCC) injured and not be able seriously injured when when they have to get
to claim compensation emergency services have somewhere fast
because of an been careless
emergency
3. Damage has to be Subjective test and Wagon mound. Fire damage Bradford v Robinson
Remoteness of damage foreseeable for c to be able some may think was unforeseeable which was Rentals. Frostbite was
to claim compensation something is unfair as D caused a lot of foreseeable because of
(Bradford v Robinson foreseeable when damage to c’s boat but conditions of van. In this
rentals) others don’t couldn’t claim case it was fair that the
damage should be
foreseeable
4. Being a learner (Nettleship Unfair that being a If you are a learner, then it is Children are you and don’t
Reasonable man test v Weston)/ junior (wilsher v learner doesn’t count likely that you don’t know what know better, but people will
characteristics Essex Health Authority) but child does when you’re doing so it is unfair that expect a learner to know
aren’t allowed but being a both are classed as you would be treated better in some cases.
professional (Bolam) or inexperienced differently
child (Mullins v Richard) is
considered
5. Latimer v AEC. Don’t have Premises can be Seems unfair to people Would be impossible to
Cost of eliminating risk to break the bank to unsafe if it will cost too
working there that where they make factories etc safe
eliminate a risk much work will be unsafe because of enough. If it cost too much it
the cost would go out of business
Reforms (here you should suggest one or two ways in which the law could be improved or amended to make it better or fairer)
1)Being a learner should be included and social utility should only be allowed up until a certain extent
, Essay Framework for Evaluation Questions – Section B’s, Q.3 (25 marks)
10 marks AO1 DESCRIBE 15 marks AO3 EVALUATE
Have to keep visitor reasonable safe and not the very vague of what reasonable is their best to make sure that the
reasonably safe visitor visitors are safe which could
reduce claims in court
5. If d hires contractors, he has Unfair that D may be D should not have to check the Despite this, it could be argued
D has to check work of to ensure that they are responsible if contractor work done by a contractor. If the that D should check that work is
contractors competent and that the work failed to do job properly. contractor fails to complete the done properly especially if there
was completed properly. work to the correct standard and is an obvious error.
(Haseldine v Daw) it means that a visitor is unsafe
it should be the responsibility of
the contractor and not the
occupier
Reforms (here you should suggest one or two ways in which the law could be improved or amended to make it better or fairer)
D should have a lesser duty of care to people using land as a cut through and a set definition of reasonably safe should be given.
10 marks AO1 DESCRIBE 15 marks AO3 EVALUATE
Point of Law AO1 Description of the law AO3 Issue/Criticism AO3 Justified? AO3 Unjustified?
Which area of the law Brief description of this area of What is the current The statement made above is The statement made above
specified in the question are law problem with this area of justified because…. may not be justified/fair
you going to talk about? E.g. Include cases/statutes the law? because….
remoteness
1. In Nettleship v Weston a It may be unfair for Harsh for someone new to a For the injured/damaged
Learner status is irrelevant learner driver was expected someone inexperience skill/ job to be judged to such a party the fact that they are a
to drive at the standard of to be tested at such a high status. It is unfair for learner is irrelevant. They will
someone qualified high standard someone unexperienced as it still want compensation and
is expected that they will make should be able to claim for
mistakes their loss
2. More careless behaviour is Unfair that someone It is unfair that someone may Emergency services don’t
Social utility acceptable in an may be seriously not be able to claim if they get need to worry about claims
emergency (Watt v HCC) injured and not be able seriously injured when when they have to get
to claim compensation emergency services have somewhere fast
because of an been careless
emergency
3. Damage has to be Subjective test and Wagon mound. Fire damage Bradford v Robinson
Remoteness of damage foreseeable for c to be able some may think was unforeseeable which was Rentals. Frostbite was
to claim compensation something is unfair as D caused a lot of foreseeable because of
(Bradford v Robinson foreseeable when damage to c’s boat but conditions of van. In this
rentals) others don’t couldn’t claim case it was fair that the
damage should be
foreseeable
4. Being a learner (Nettleship Unfair that being a If you are a learner, then it is Children are you and don’t
Reasonable man test v Weston)/ junior (wilsher v learner doesn’t count likely that you don’t know what know better, but people will
characteristics Essex Health Authority) but child does when you’re doing so it is unfair that expect a learner to know
aren’t allowed but being a both are classed as you would be treated better in some cases.
professional (Bolam) or inexperienced differently
child (Mullins v Richard) is
considered
5. Latimer v AEC. Don’t have Premises can be Seems unfair to people Would be impossible to
Cost of eliminating risk to break the bank to unsafe if it will cost too
working there that where they make factories etc safe
eliminate a risk much work will be unsafe because of enough. If it cost too much it
the cost would go out of business
Reforms (here you should suggest one or two ways in which the law could be improved or amended to make it better or fairer)
1)Being a learner should be included and social utility should only be allowed up until a certain extent
, Essay Framework for Evaluation Questions – Section B’s, Q.3 (25 marks)
10 marks AO1 DESCRIBE 15 marks AO3 EVALUATE
Have to keep visitor reasonable safe and not the very vague of what reasonable is their best to make sure that the
reasonably safe visitor visitors are safe which could
reduce claims in court
5. If d hires contractors, he has Unfair that D may be D should not have to check the Despite this, it could be argued
D has to check work of to ensure that they are responsible if contractor work done by a contractor. If the that D should check that work is
contractors competent and that the work failed to do job properly. contractor fails to complete the done properly especially if there
was completed properly. work to the correct standard and is an obvious error.
(Haseldine v Daw) it means that a visitor is unsafe
it should be the responsibility of
the contractor and not the
occupier
Reforms (here you should suggest one or two ways in which the law could be improved or amended to make it better or fairer)
D should have a lesser duty of care to people using land as a cut through and a set definition of reasonably safe should be given.
