Pretty much the same as yourself re: the informed consent question except that I didn't touch on employer's liability at all because the question said that the employer accepted that they had been liable (I think). For the nuisance question, I focused on nuisance, didn't touch on trespass at all but I can see now how that could be brought in. I've heard with tort that as long as you back up your answers you'll be fine so fingers crossed.
On Oct 14, 7:03 pm, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey what did ye think of the Medical/ Employer liability principals? > I did causation (multiple)/safe place of work/Informed consent > Fitzharris v Whyte /remoteness of the harm with the wife leaving no > liability as not forseeable/ damages in proportion of the harm caused. > > On Oct 14, 6:38 pm, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thougt it was fair paper as well, the Nuisance question also had an > > element of Trespass well i said so as Smoke onto someones land in > > McDonald v Ass. Fuels was trespass and said that Noise was similar > > raised that but dismissed it right away; Nuisance Interference was > > easier to argue and is less reliant on negligence principals and has > > more remedies anyone have any thoughts on mentioning it as a trespass? > > > Did nt do the Neg Psychaitric Injury Q (was going to but went for the > > Nuisance one) but is'nt it Devlin v National Maternity Hospital (bad > > news -> trauma) and Wilkinson v downtown as Intentional infliction? > > Kelly/Alcock/McLoughlin are Psychatric damage as a result of an > > accident ie shock induced thats not really negligence imo as an > > accident is not nessasarily a breach of any duty?? > > > On Oct 14, 2:50 pm, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Infliction of emotional distress need not be intentional, it may also > > > be negligent per. Wilkinson v. Downtown > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
