So am I the only fool that answered question 5 as both rylands v fletcher and pure economic loss....what the hell was I thinking.....
I passed Tort last Oct but didn't get my 3 so had to resit it.....thought that was a hard enough paper. I answered question 8 somewhat differently too....we were only asked to deal with the issue of Rosarie's house which was what Tony was there to do...I dealt with both employers and vicarious liability on this one....... Looks like I might be sitting this one again come October....the joys!!!! On Apr 6, 6:17 pm, b05bf1e4 <[email protected]> wrote: > I kinda found myself asking more questions on that nervous shock > question than answered...i knew the case law, but i was unsure as to > how to tackle it...i found myself making a circular agrument...lets > just hope he likes circles!!! > > On Apr 6, 6:10 pm, aviationhead <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As for Q8, I did exactly the same. Talked a little at the beginning > > about the general duties in employers liability, i.e. provision of > > competent staff etc and then spent most of the time on Vic Liability. > > I also briefly mentioned at the end re what could happen to the > > employee and would Rosarie have any contribution to the negligence > > (Probo not relevant but made the answer longer!!) > > > As for Nervous Shock, I thought he was a little sly in that one, > > telling us that John was negligent in connecting the power system. > > That threw me at first so I just mentioned again bout emp/vic > > liability and then went into the usual Nervous Shock issues, O'Brien, > > Alcock, Mullally, Kelly, Curran (Primary Vic) et al... > > > As for Q4: I take it that it was pretty much on Occupiers Liability, > > again with some other smaller issues coming from Treapass, Concurrent > > wrongdoers etc? > > > And I take it that Q7 was pretty much a Trespass to the person > > question with a few other issues put in for good measure? > > > On Apr 6, 5:40 pm, 8th Timer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How yis, > > > > I did that last question as a vicarious liabilty question, was he > > > outside the course of employment when giving the lift...you were only > > > asked to advise his employers so i presume if he was outside the > > > course of his employment we didn't need to discuss any personal > > > liability for the problem?? Any other views out there on this one, how > > > did ye approach the psych shock question, seeing as we had to advise > > > the employer in that as well did ye put in a bit about vicarious > > > liability in that? > > > > On Apr 6, 5:26 pm, b05bf1e4 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > One more question, how did you tackle the last problem question, the > > > > one with Roserie and her installation... > > > > > On Apr 6, 4:49 pm, aviationhead <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Guys! > > > > > > What did you think of the Tort paper today? > > > > > > I thought It was ok. I answered Q2, 4, 6, 7 and 8. > > > > > > The problem questions were quite busy but they were on the usual > > > > > topics so at least he didnt do an EU on us!!!- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
