cheers for that guys only did a small bit on the emploer safe system
of work so not too bad heres hoping anyway....!
On Oct 15, 12:17 am, padraig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
