Sh*t,just realised I said Owens v Greene instead of Keegan v Owens as regards suppliers being regarded as 'manufacturers' at common law in defective prod q. Also called McNamara v Duncan the 'Mcdonald case' for consent to trespass in sport. Went blank on Gregan v O'sullivan two...kinda got all me consent muddled a bit,mentioned Walsh though.Also forgot defence of property! Got stautory auth,self/3rd party,necessity defence in though. Was't 100% on qual priv/fair comment distinction but i was able to write about both so i did jst that!
All in all,bit caught for time.Coulda done with a bit longer for def prod as my last q to gather my thoughts. Hopefully pass it though(obviously !) On Oct 14, 10:32 am, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > I don't know maybe I'm wrong but I used the Philips v Durgan and the > Turner v Irish Rail cases for non-consequential psychiatric injury as > well as the nervous shock cases like McLoughlain because I felt in > both cases that there was negligence. In Philips the negligence of the > brother to tell the sister about the state of the kitchen led to a > fire occurring. In Turner, the negligence of the railway company to > fix the post fence resulted in a child entering it and nearly being > killed by the train. I differentiated between physical injury occuring > to a plaintiff together with the onset of mental illness in that the > courts are more willing to compensate in this situation than in a > situation where there is no physical injury to the plaintiff but some > other event triggers a mental illness in them. It is in this situation > that the cases of Philips and Turner fit in. My argument based around > the fact that traditionally the courts were reluctant to compensate > for psychological injury due to the floodgates but that advances in > medical science has greatly reduced the possibility of this occuring. > I mentioned the tests of remoteness and proximity in relation to both > non-conseq psychiatric injury and conseq psychiatric injury. Well > thats what I got out of the question I hope I got on ok with it. > > I welcome contradictions. > > On Oct 13, 8:11 pm, ShellBelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > In the psych injury Q i only discussed nervous shock as it asked for > > negligently inflicted psych injury thereby excluding intentional > > infliction of emotional damage..... Is this right?? > > > I agree it was the fairest paper in years. > > > On Oct 13, 7:37 pm, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well done, > > > > Hopefully we will get the magic 50 > > > > On Oct 13, 6:32 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I agree, I know some people will hate me for saying this, but it was > > > > the fairest tort paper I've seen in ages. > > > > There is usually some question on an obscure niche area or a problem > > > > question designed to catch you out. > > > > As far as I can tell, neither happened today. > > > > I think (although I haven't looked at it since) that that question was > > > > purely nuisance. > > > > I did the psychiatric one too, just prattled on about nervous shock > > > > and infliction of emotional distress (very little on that) > > > > Defamation Q was grand Re: Defences. I thought there was a lot going > > > > on in Q7 (Bertie) > > > > All in all a fine paper > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:07 pm, Perdy22 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi hows it going? > > > > > I thought it was a fair paper to be honest. I sat it last year too and > > > > > I though it was much tougher. What questions did you do? Can you > > > > > clarify for me if the nuisance question was only about nuisance or did > > > > > I miss any other issue in it? In relation to the psychaitric question. > > > > > Any ideas on what was relevant. I put in the issues on non- > > > > > consequential psychaitric injury and mental distress accompanied by a > > > > > physical injury. I used cases like fletcher, mullaly, kelly, alcock, > > > > > etc. Please tell me that I'm right in these issues!!!!!!!! I rushed > > > > > the 5th question which for me was on trespass defences. I though the > > > > > defamation question was ok, alot of writing for it though. In general > > > > > I was happy enough with it. How about you? > > > > > > On Oct 13, 2:49 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Any thoughts on the paper??- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
