Tort Law

Thank you so much. Could you help me with a structure please.

Of course. I mean there are a number of ways in which you could structure a response to a problem, for example you could write all you know on the area of law and then apply it to the scenario. However, to access the top marks you should integrate both. Here's what I would do.

Ahmed by choosing to ignore the cordoned road, causing an accident when he falls to the railway below may have an action against Allerton Construction under negligence provided he could satisfy the criteria for breach of duty and prove that they factually and legally caused the accident. This would be unlikely to succeed as Allerton Construction have not been careless and attempted to reduce the risks by cordoning off the road. Ahmed by not appreciating these signs can be argued to have caused his injuries. As a result of his impatience, he's caused an emergency scene leading to many people bringing claims for nervous shock. Nervous Shock is an extension of negligence so duty of care, breach of duty and causation must still be fulfilled. Psychiatric Damage was defined in Bourhill v Young as being damage to the mind or senses induced by a shocking event, the damage must also be medically recognised.

Sarah v Ahmed:
Sarah as a result of being the first individuals on scene trying to help Ahmed suffers from reoccurring flashbacks from the incident and nightmares, this may well be a recognised psychiatric illness so will qualify. In Vernon v Bosley the illness could be partly down to the physical trauma of the events and partly due to a mental illness. (D was liable when father suffered grief partly due to trauma d partly due to illness when he saw his children drown in car negligently driven). Primary victims are those who have immediate fear for their personal safety illustrated in Dulieu v White (D liable when he crashed his horse n' cart into the pub window C was working at.) Sarah was not in the vehicle when it crashed and as she attempts to help would be a rescuer. In Chadwick v BRB a rescuer could claim for nervous shock regardless on whether they feared their own safety. (D was liable for C's anxiety when he acted as a rescuer administering drugs train wreck survivors.) It doesn't matter if the rescuers are professional or not meaning Sarah comes under the claimants, in Hale v London Underground (Firefighter was able to claim when he was present at King's Cross fire.) This was overruled by White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and now rescuers have to fear for their own safety.( D not liable for PC's PTSD at Hillsborough as they didn't put themselves at risk.) Sarah would qualify under White as she gets close to petrol which is highly flammable and could ignite at any time to put sand down to avoid a fire, making it reasonable to fear her own safety. Sarah would succeed in a claim against Ahmed. ***

I'd do these with the other claimants, don't repeat cases though just say as mentioned above. Always talk about any possible defences at the end of C's claim. ***any defences here.

Hope this helps!

Thank you sooo much , would i be able to use this if you wouldnt mind , makes life so much easier pleasee

Helloo .. would sarah and rashid be primary or secondary victims x above you sed they are both secondary but then you wrote primary @Calmclo