Yip, I only wrote 2 lines on employers liability/safe place of work as the employer had admitted being negligent
On Oct 14, 7:31 pm, CurlyWurly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
