[TOSCS]

Several of my Tort exam questions take the form of a paragraph explaining Mr Person's situation, and finish with "Advise Mr Person"

Obviously the first step is to identify the tort in question, but then what? If I don't think they have grounds for recovery, should I 'advise' them not to seek compensation, or am I just supposed to advise them as to which grounds they must fulfil?

[vnupe]

The propose of the 'advise' question, is to enable the student to demonstrate a panoramic view of all of the issues that will possibly be confronted in the 'case' at hand, which in this instance affects Mr. Person. Therefore in advising him, the student should as you say demonstrate that they not only recognize the tort which is in play, but in order to get a really good grade, the student should also show that he views the issues from a comprehensive point of view.
For example, if we are discussing negligence, it would not be enough for the student to define the tort of negligence, but they must go on to indicate the pros and cons of such a finding, touching perhaps, causation (legal and factual), egg shell skull rule etc.

[TOSCS]

But what about this for example:

Mary is a nurse at a busy Accident and Emergency department. One evening a number of
ambulances arrive carrying the victims of a car accident. Mary assists in treating the
wounded. To her shock she discovers that one of the victims is her cousin Anne. Anne has
suffered a broken arm in the accident but is otherwise unhurt. A neighbour of Mary’s, Tom,
is also among the wounded. Tragically, he dies shortly after arriving at the hospital. Mary
does not know any of the other four people injured in the accident, two of whom have very
serious injuries and may not survive. It transpires that the accident was caused by a drunk
driver. Once staff at the hospital become aware that Mary knows two of the victims she is
asked to finish work and to go home. Mary has found the experience extremely traumatic and
subsequently has difficulty sleeping or concentrating at work. Some weeks later she is
diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and asks your advice. Please
advise her.

I know about the various tests that must be passed for recovery of damages, but I personally I find it ridiculous that a professional nurse would suffer PTSD just because her neighbour dies (she has no ties to the other deceased and her cousin is relatively ok). Should I say this, or am I supposed to approach it in a completely positive manner and just tell Mary she must prove that her relationship with her neighbour is a strong one (proximity)?

I don't even know how to word these tbh

[thecrimsonidol]

Treat the facts you have in the question as gospel. sometimes though, key information you need may be missing, so do mention that, but try and make a reasoned decision about the facts/act as if you knew the fact you need (but do write down that you would still need to clarify the point for your advice to be accurate).

Start with identifying the individual topics/legal issues that appear. Then, work through each issue one by one (I do it chronologically as it appears in the question, but there isn't really a hard and fast rule about it, unless issues link with each other tightly). Then, outline the relevant law surrounding the issue (Don't just repeat everything you know about the topic - only use the stuff which is actually relevant). This is where you need to show your knowledge of cases and statutory provisions. Ideally if you can (and if the issue allows for it), try and give some detailed reasoning behind some of the cases (e.g. quotes/arguments from some of the judges) and any current proposals in the law to change, also maybe some dissenting decisions/obiter dicta.
Then, apply this law to the issue in question. Do it with each issue, then conclude.

That's largely a generic template for most 'advise' questions.

[Norton1]

(Original post by TOSCS)
But what about this for example:


I know about the various tests that must be passed for recovery of damages, but I personally I find it ridiculous that a professional nurse would suffer PTSD just because her neighbour dies (she has no ties to the other deceased and her cousin is relatively ok). Should I say this, or am I supposed to approach it in a completely positive manner and just tell Mary she must prove that her relationship with her neighbour is a strong one (proximity)?

I don't even know how to word these tbh

In that particular instance it would be a good idea to look at the cases surrounding nervous shock and 'professional rescuers' and you can make a judgment on the likelihood of her action succeeding.

For example you would identify the tort, say why she was proximate or anything, state the objections and give some idea of whether you think she would succeed or not.

In a criminal case it might be that you look at the facts and say whether someone should be charged with culpable homicide/manslaughter or murder. It's just to show that you follow what the question is asking. Another example might be if someone has two possible options and you might be able to advise on the best one. You'd get marks both for identifying the two options and then offering advice (which you justify) about which option to take.