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

No, the duty of care for the ambulance driver (as you must apply the risk factor (Bolton v Stone)) is high and he would also be liable based on the ordinary ambulance driver. This is due to that a ball appeared on the middle of the road and ergo the ambulance driver (in addition to the general training and further experience as a ambulance driver) should have slowed down as it is foreseeable that a child might reach out for the ball. Thus, the ambulance driver is negligent (Bolam v Friern hospital management committee). Think of it- despite an emergency, if one drives fast but sees a ball sudden appear in the middle of the road then they should (by the standards of the ordinary experienced driver (ambulance driver even!)) slow down since a child may appear, yet Xavier maintains speed.
However, I believe it is equally rewarding if you analyse how the ambulance driver was in an emergency and so it is unlikely he would be liable.
I don't think it is that important but the paper overall was challenging in my opinion due to the complexity and content of scenarios given at the last 30 marker! 3 claims and the defence of contributory negligence in addition to a theory question of psychiatric injury :frown:

!

Reply 42

Yh my hand was gone icl but taking my time to answer each individual bit was worth getting carpel tunnel😂

Reply 43

boss.123

WTF is conditional fee agreements btw?????! never got taught it

Reply 44

Original post by kalitorus

Wouldnt work bro that’s caparo. The Robinsons test overturned the decision of hill establishing that “ public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions, but are not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties.” The likelihood or risk was also very high (haley) so he would be liable for negligence, albeit with a defence of contributory negligence

Yeah this is what I said because Robinson established that a positive act (unlike Hill v CC of West Yorkshire) means that it's fair to establish duty of care. Glad others agree haha

Reply 45

Original post by boss.123

WTF is conditional fee agreements btw?????! never got taught it

That question was so sneaky cuz one of my points was going to be that if u dont win u dont pay but that’s literally what the question included so i didnt put it. A lot of peope wrote that down tho so if i lose marks cuz of that imma be ****ed.
The points i wrote were that they r more expensive cuz the firms are taking more risk by potenially not getting paid
N my second point was waffle cuz i couldnt think of another feature so i said how there are hidden fees so its not completely a no win no fee

Reply 46

App not cause people were saying u dont need bolam and Bolto because those are only for medical cases like surgeons and stuff he should of preformed to the standard of an ordinary ambulance driver and cite bylth

Original post by boss.123

No, the duty of care for the ambulance driver (as you must apply the risk factor (Bolton v Stone)) is high and he would also be liable based on the ordinary ambulance driver. This is due to that a ball appeared on the middle of the road and ergo the ambulance driver (in addition to the general training and further experience as a ambulance driver) should have slowed down as it is foreseeable that a child might reach out for the ball. Thus, the ambulance driver is negligent (Bolam v Friern hospital management committee). Think of it- despite an emergency, if one drives fast but sees a ball sudden appear in the middle of the road then they should (by the standards of the ordinary experienced driver (ambulance driver even!)) slow down since a child may appear, yet Xavier maintains speed.
However, I believe it is equally rewarding if you analyse how the ambulance driver was in an emergency and so it is unlikely he would be liable.
I don't think it is that important but the paper overall was challenging in my opinion due to the complexity and content of scenarios given at the last 30 marker! 3 claims and the defence of contributory negligence in addition to a theory question of psychiatric injury :frown:

!

Reply 47

i agree in the end of the day its a instance of a driver and pedestrian so lots of precedented cases like nettleship v weston

Original post by kalitorus

Wouldnt work bro that’s caparo. The Robinsons test overturned the decision of hill establishing that “ public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions, but are not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties.” The likelihood or risk was also very high (haley) so he would be liable for negligence, albeit with a defence of contributory negligence

Reply 48

for the nervous shock 1 how does she fail? and also if u miss out contributory negligence is that like 5 marks?

Original post by Joeshirley

Nuisance - liable. Injunction for night time, not for day time as only affects tv (hunter v Canary Wharf) also public benefit would outweigh at day time (miller v Jackson)
RvF - straight forward. Liable, defence of stranger fails as D is aware of the action.
Negligence - complicated, not liable as I found no DOC as not J,F,R (Hill v CC West Yorkshire) and no breach, ambulance can’t go slower due to emergency, also contributory negligence.
Nervous shock 1 - not liable fails Alcock test (prox of relationship)
Nervous shock 2 - not liable as again I argued D not negligent!

Reply 49

Original post by Kingbets

App not cause people were saying u dont need bolam and Bolto because those are only for medical cases like surgeons and stuff he should of preformed to the standard of an ordinary ambulance driver and cite bylth

The cases you cite dont gotta be specific to doctors. as long as it links to the preced established its fine cuz bolam just established the duty of care to any professional so in this case profession of ambulance, and bolton is completely different cuz thats the risk factors which you definitely do need to include. I wouldve used haley than bolton though as imo the likelihood of risk of getting someone injured was very high.

(edited 10 months ago)

Reply 50

i agree the risk factors is defo needed i agree with that but im pretty for breach of duty blyth was all that was needed

Original post by kalitorus

The cases you cite dont gotta be specific to doctors. as long as it links to the preced established its fine cuz bolam just established the duty of care to any professional so in this case profession of ambulance, and bolton is completely different cuz thats the risk factors which you definitely do need to include. I wouldve used haley than bolton though as imo the likelihood of risk of getting someone injured was very high.

Reply 51

Original post by Kingbets

for the nervous shock 1 how does she fail? and also if u miss out contributory negligence is that like 5 marks?

She fails in regard to the immediate nature of viewing the incident. Obviously McLouglan or however u spell it gives precedent for going straight to the hospital but the wording is "eventually" which implies she had her whole shower etc etc before going to the hospital, ergo failing in that regard. That's what I did anyways lmao

Reply 52

Original post by Kingbets

App not cause people were saying u dont need bolam and Bolto because those are only for medical cases like surgeons and stuff he should of preformed to the standard of an ordinary ambulance driver and cite bylth

We got taught Bolam applies to all professionals not just medical because it sets the precedent that a professional is judged to the standard of a reasonable professional.

Reply 53

Original post by Eeeeeej

She fails in regard to the immediate nature of viewing the incident. Obviously McLouglan or however u spell it gives precedent for going straight to the hospital but the wording is "eventually" which implies she had her whole shower etc etc before going to the hospital, ergo failing in that regard. That's what I did anyways lmao

Yh I got that too. I said if she had answered the door when zen was calling for her and saw will in his state when he had just gotten hit then that would’ve been fine but as she only witnessed him in tears it doesnt qualify as immediate aftermath

Reply 54

Original post by Eeeeeej

She fails in regard to the immediate nature of viewing the incident. Obviously McLouglan or however u spell it gives precedent for going straight to the hospital but the wording is "eventually" which implies she had her whole shower etc etc before going to the hospital, ergo failing in that regard. That's what I did anyways lmao

yes but is it not it needs be closer to mcloughlin than it is to alcock so it should be closer to 1-2 hrs than it is to 8 hours

Reply 55

Original post by Kingbets

yes but is it not it needs be closer to mcloughlin than it is to alcock so it should be closer to 1-2 hrs than it is to 8 hours

The precedent isn't setting set time limits, just rough time based concepts, which is one of the weaknesses of statute based law - what is the definition of immediate? At the end of the day if you argued your point well you'll be credited for it, but I would have said that the usage of 'eventually' in the question establishes a long waiting period between the accident and her 'observing with her own unaided senses' and as such fails on imminence.

Reply 56

Hajiraahm

Was Zen not a primary victim as they were directly involved in the incident since it said they saw it?

Reply 57