GENERAL NEGLIGENCE

S 10 - 43

Q1. Critically assess the role of policy in decision making in cases in the tort of
negligence and explain why policy has been allowed to play such a role.

S 14 - 41

Q1. The law of negligence has various aims: the compensation of victims of harm,
identifying who is at fault, the deterrence of carelessness and spreading the costs of
harm caused by carelessness.
Critically assess the extent to which each of these aims is met by the law.

W15 - 41

Q2. Trespass to the person is no longer necessary as the tort of negligence provides a
satisfactory means of recovery for claimants.
Critically assess this view.
 DUTY OF CARE

S 15 - 43

Q1. The current approach to establishing a duty of care in negligence can restrict the
liability of defendants and result in the claimant being refused compensation.
Critically analyse the impact of this approach with reference to decided cases.

S 18 - 42

Q3. The test for establishing a duty of care is complex and uncertain.
Explain and evaluate the current test for establishing a duty of care in the tort of
negligence.
 BREACH OF DOC

S 17 - 41

Q1. Explain and critically analyse the range of factors considered by the court when
deciding whether or not a duty of care has been breached in negligence.

S 18 - 43

Q1. Explain and critically analyse the factors which may be considered when deciding
whether there has been a breach of duty in negligence.
 CAUSATION & REMOTENESS

S 13 - 42

Q1. In negligence cases, the rules relating to causation and remoteness restrict the
liability of defendants.
Using decided cases to support your views, critically assess the impact of these
rules on the aim of damages to fully compensate victims of tort.

S 14 - 43

Q1. The tort of negligence aims to compensate claimants for their losses.
With reference to decided cases, discuss the extent to which the principles of
causation and remoteness restrict the law’s ability to achieve the above aim.

S 17 - 43

Q1. The dif culty of identifying the precise cause of harm can produce unfair
outcomes for claimants.
Explain and evaluate the rules governing causation in negligence.

S 20 - 42

Explain the rules relating to remoteness of damage in negligence. Assess whether the
current rules achieve justice for the parties.

S 21 - 43

Describe the test for establishing a duty of care in negligence. Assess the extent to which
policy
considerations are relevant when a court is deciding whether a duty of care exists.
fi
W11 - 42

Q1. Analyse critically the circumstances under which a novus actus interveniens (new act
intervening) may affect a defendant’s liability in the tort of negligence.

W12 - 41

Q3. In negligence cases it is the court’s aim to compensate the innocent victims of the
tort.
Critically assess the extent to which the application of rules relating to causation and
remoteness in decided cases has impacted on this aim.

W12 - 42

Q1. Critically analyse the development and application of the remoteness of damage
principle through cases in the law of tort.

W12 - 43

Q3. In negligence cases it is the court’s aim to compensate the innocent victims of the
tort.
Critically assess the extent to which the application of rules relating to causation and
remoteness in decided cases has impacted on this aim.
 NERVOUS SHOCK/PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

S 10 - 41

Q2. The distinction between primary and secondary victims was said by the Law
Commission in its report on psychiatric illness to be ‘more of a hindrance than a
help’ and it was said that there was ‘confusing inconsistency’.
Analyse the rules relating to nervous shock and critically assess whether or not you
agree with this view.

S 11 - 42

Q1. Evaluate the usefulness of the current rules relating to liability for secondary
victims in the tort of negligence.

S 14 - 42

Q3. The current law relating to nervous shock is unsatisfactory and only policy
considerations can justify it. Critically assess this view.

S 15 - 41

Q1. In cases involving nervous shock, special rules exist to restrict the number of
potential claims. Critically assess the extent to which you agree with this statement.

S 17 - 42

Q2. The recovery of damages for nervous shock is governed by many factors including
policy considerations. Describe these factors and evaluate the role played by policy
considerations.
W 10 - 4

Q1. The distinction made between primary and secondary victims who suffer nervous
shock can no longer be justi ed. Critically analyse the rules that are applied in
claims for nervous shock and assess the extent to which the view above can be
substantiated.

W11 - 41

Q1. Judicial attitudes towards the award of damages for psychiatric illness caused by
negligence have softened signi cantly over the years.
Trace the development of case law associated with claims for nervous shock and consider
the extent to which accident victims are likely to receive compensation for this form of
loss today.

W13 - 41

Q3. In spite of the publication of a Law Commission report in 1998, the rules on
compensation for secondary victims suffering nervous shock continue to be too restrictive.
Critically assess the fairness of the current rules relating to losses suffered by secondary
victims of negligence as developed and applied in decided cases.

W14 - 41

Q1. The distinction drawn between the primary and secondary victims suffering nervous
shock as a consequence of negligence is unnecessary and unfair.
Explain the distinction between the two types of victim and assess the validity of this
statement.

S19 - 41

Q2. The current rules governing the recovery of damages for negligence resulting in
nervous shock are illogical and unfair.
Describe the current rules and assess the validity of this statement.
fi
fi
S 20 - 42

In claims for negligence resulting in nervous shock it is necessary to have rules which
restrict the number of potential claimants.

Explain the rules governing recovery of damages for nervous shock. Assess the validity of
the statement above.

S 21 - 42

Describe the rules governing nervous shock and assess the fairness of these rules in
relation to rescuers and bystanders.
 ECONOMIC LOSS

S 11 - 43

Q2. The distinction drawn between pure economic loss and other kinds of loss is one
that is dif cult to justify.
Brie y explain why purely economic loss is treated differently in the tort of
negligence and, with reference to case law, critically assess the extent to which this
statement is true.

S 12 - 42

Q1. Explain the difference in law between economic loss and purely economic loss in
the tort of negligence. Critically analyse whether or not the distinction is truly
justi able with reference to case law.

S 15 - 42

Q2. The rules governing the recovery of damages for pure economic loss are based on
policy considerations rather than the interests of justice.
With reference to relevant case law, critically assess the validity of this statement.

S 16 - 41

Q2. The current rules governing liability for negligent misstatement are too restrictive.
Critically analyse the development of these rules and comment on whether they
are now too restrictive.

S 16 - 43

Q2. The current rules governing liability for negligent misstatement are too restrictive.
Critically analyse the development of these rules and comment on whether they
are now too restrictive.
fi
fl
fi
W16 - 43

Q2. The distinction between claims for physical damage and for pure economic loss in
the tort of negligence is an arti cial one which causes unjust results for claimants.
Critically analyse this statement, with reference to case law.

S18 - 41

Q1. Describe and evaluate the elements which must be present to establish liability for a
negligent misstatement.

S19 - 42

Distinguish between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss in the law of
tort and assess the view that this is an illogical distinction.

S 19 - 43
Describe and evaluate the elements of liability for a claim in respect of loss resulting from
a negligent misstatement.

S 21 - 41

Describe the rules which apply to establishing a duty of care for a negligent misstatement.
Assess the extent to which the rules are too restrictive.

W 20 - 41

Describe the factors considered by the court when deciding whether a duty of care should
be imposed for a negligent misstatement. Assess the effectiveness of these factors.
fi