AQA A-level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]

What came up in 2022 for q9 of paper 2?

Morality - safe to assume it's not coming up this year.

What are the English legal system parts of the paper ik civil courts are included ofc, but I forgot what else?

I was only taught the Robinson test, so I don't know what exactly you're missing. I've written the structure below.

Negligence is based on the neighbour principle established in Donoughe v Stevenson. Firstly, the defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care. Robinson held that the three-stage Caparo v Dickman test is not necessary so long as the duty of care is obvious.

Secondly, the defendant must breach their duty of care. In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, Alderson B. defined this as 'doing or not doing something that a reasonable person would or would not do.'

We must now consider the relevant characteristics:
1. Expert - judged by standard of reasonable expert. (Bollom/Bolitho)
2. Beginner - judged by standard of reasonable expert. (Nettleship v Weston)
3. Children - judged by the standard of children the same age. (Mullins v Richards)

We must now consider the risk factors, which have the potential to raise or lower the standard of care expected from the defendant.
1. Probability of harm - if the probability of injury is high, the standard of care will rise in conjunction. (Bolton v Stone)
2. Magnitude of the risk - if the probability of damages is high, the standard of care will rise in conjunction. (Paris v Stepney Council)
3. Cost and practicality - considers if there were any cost or practical barriers preventing the defendant from taking greater care. (Latimer)

Social utility (side rule) - if there was a greater benefit to society in the defendant taking the risk, they may not be liable. (Watt v Herefordshire Council).

It must now be established that the defendant was the factual and legal cause of the damages:
1. Factual cause - 'but for the defendant's actions, would the result have happened anyway? (Barnett)
2. Legal cause - the remoteness of damage test: were the damages not too remote, meaning were they reasonably foreseeable? If so, the defendant can claim. (Wagon Mound)

So long as the injuries are foreseeable, the claimant can sue. This applies even if the injuries occurred in an unforeseeable way. (Hughes v Lord Advocate).

Rescuers (side rule) - rescuers can only be sued if they make a positive act which causes foreseeable injury. (Robinson)

Emergency workers - emergency workers can only be sued if they make the risk substantially higher. Generally, however, emergency service workers cannot be sued in the public interest. (Osman v United Kingdom)

According to the thin skull rule, the defendant must take their claimant as they find them. (Robinson v Post Office)

bolam and bolitho is only for medics tho right

Wait no, its for all professionals, the case was about doctors, but it's professionals in general they are measured against other professionals

app its only for medics if not u would use Blyth v birmingham waterworks as the case was would the ordinary waterwork company do the same

I understand that, but that's how my teacher taught it. I don't think I'd lose marks for using it, will I? I use Blyth v Birmingham Watetworks to show the case which established a duty of care, later built on by Lord Atkin in D v S (NP) and then C v D with the 3 part test and now Robbinson.

None of my revision is sticking in my head... It's gonna be a fun exam tomorrow

mfw I spend two years learning and revising Occupier's Liability only for it to not come up at all

What did u put for liability for the two 30 markers?