Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Aqa law unit 2 offical thread

Scroll to see replies

AQA LAW UNIT 2 2016 UNOFFICIAL MARK SCHEME - PART OF TORT 1. Explainwhat is meant by breach of duty and briefly explain one of the risk factors. (8Marks)(A) Outline with cases and/or examples of the meaning of thereasonable man objective test –explained through a case such as Blyth vBirmingham Waterworks specialcharacteristics of the defendant professionals– explained through a case such as Bolamv Friern Barnet HMC learners –explained through a case such as Nettleshipv Weston • children – explained through a case such as Mullins v Richards. (B) Brief explanation with cases of the meaning of any onerisk factor and the effect that has on the standard of care, for example: specialcharacteristics of the claimant – if known to the defendant to be morevulnerable, then higher standard expected – explained through a case such as Paris v Stepney BC / the size of therisk – the reasonable man does not take care against minute risks, but doesagainst big risks – explained through a case such as Bolton v Stone / practical precautions – taking reasonable but notexcessive precautions – explained through a case such as Latimer v AEC /the benefits of taking the risk – emergencies andpublic utility – explained through a case such as Watt v Herts CC.MAX 5 IF NO RISKFACTOR.2. Explainwhat is meant by remoteness in damage (8marks)Explanation of remoteness of damage; this should includeforeseeability, the Wagon Mound test. Type of damage as in Hughes v LordAdvocate – does not matter about the precise order of events as long as thedamage was foreseeable/Thin Skull rule as in Smith v Leech Brain.Here's what you should have included for question 7 and 8 of the TORT section. I can do questions 9-12 due to not being aware of the full question!! HOPE THIS HELPS :-)

Reply 221

georgia_moon

Original post by charlotte_6898

Ah good good, hadn't found anybody else that had! Yeah that is true, did you put anticipatory breach anyway? For Harry

no i just said there was Actual breach for Gareth, and then said there was no breach for Harry. I felt like two lots of breach to talk about after defining both before, was loads for 8 marks.

Reply 222

Asimplestudent

what was needed in question 12 i.e burden and standard of proof and res ipsa?

Reply 223

Emilythorb

Original post by NHM

Can anyone remember what question 9 of the tort section was?

The questions were posted earlier in this thread:Tort -7) breach and one risk factor (8 marks) 8) remoteness in damage (8 marks) - this was a generous question 9) damage and remoteness in negligence ( 8 marks + 2 A03) 10) duty of care ( 8 marks) 11) procedure to negligence claims (5 marks) 12) burden and standard of proof + res ispa loquitor (8 marks)

Reply 224

NHM

Original post by Emilythorb

Thanks Emily! I feel stupid now seen as it was me that posted them! - have you seen my unofficial mark scheme for criminal law? :-)

Reply 225

Bruce267099

Original post by Asimplestudent

what was needed in question 12 i.e burden and standard of proof and res ipsa?

You need to say what res ipsa Loquitur is and say that it is used when the negligence is obvious but the defendant doesn't know how. Then you had to say what the three rules were for it to apply and if it does then if shifts the burden if proof from the claimant the defendant and he must prove he was not negligent.

Then explain what the standard of proof is and where it lies (i didn't include it because i don't know what it is)

Then you had to apply to the scenario to the 3 rules and in this case it obviously did apply. Therefore chris will have to prove he took all practical precautions to not be liable in negligence.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 226

NHM

Original post by Bruce267099

Standard of proof- balance of probability
Burden of proof- on C that must prove D has been negligent.

Res ispa loquitor I concluded that there may have been multiple explainations for Dans illness so he couldn't use it...
I only really bothered applying the last factor... (only explaination of Cs injury/ damage) :-)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 227

Bruce267099

Original post by NHM

I suppose you could argue it either way.

I put dan being ill was wholly under control of chris
I put that it wouldn't of happened unless chris served dan contaminated food
There is no other explanation for him becoming ill quite soon after.

Therefore it applies. But it depends how to interpreted the extract.

Reply 228

NHM

Original post by Bruce267099

I guess so yeah :-) I only put it didn't apply on the fact that he could have become ill for many reasons... It may have just been a sudden illness that he got etc. But yeah guess you could argue both ways :-)

Reply 229

Bruce267099

Original post by NHM

We both came to a reasoned conclusion. A lot of the times in law it doesn't matter, as long as you justify yourself and apply.

Reply 230

NHM

Original post by Bruce267099

We both came to a reasoned conclusion. A lot of the times in law it doesn't matter, as long as you justify yourself and apply.

Yeah exactly I'm on my A2 year I retook this exam- the teacher always said to me it doesn't matter about the conclusion :smile:

Reply 231

Bruce267099

Original post by NHM

Yeah exactly I'm on my A2 year I retook this exam- the teacher always said to me it doesn't matter about the conclusion :smile:

I think I'm doing the same, but I'll be better next year i'll go from my B to my A :biggrin:

Reply 232

Emilythorb

Original post by NHM

Thanks Emily! I feel stupid now seen as it was me that posted them! - have you seen my unofficial mark scheme for criminal law? :-)

Yes I did! Will you be making one for section B tort of negligence ?

Reply 233

NHM

Original post by Emilythorb

Yes I did! Will you be making one for section B tort of negligence ?

Yeah Monday. Once I have access to the scenario so I can correctly apply it and I'll post it once I've had it checked by my tutor :-) what did you think of the criminal law one was it ok?

Reply 234

Emilythorb

Original post by NHM

Yeah Monday. Once I have access to the scenario so I can correctly apply it and I'll post it once I've had it checked by my tutor :-) what did you think of the criminal law one was it ok?

Yeah I did however I didn't think you could apply causation with s.20? I've never seen it in the textbook so that really confused me but everything else was spot on :smile:

Reply 235

NHM

Original post by Emilythorb

Yeah I did however I didn't think you could apply causation with s.20? I've never seen it in the textbook so that really confused me but everything else was spot on :smile:

I personally didn't talk about causation :-) but I think you were meant to say that there is an intervening act (act of third party Smith) but it wouldn't break the chain as Binhs pushing Aki overwhelmed the doctors act of him telling him to come back in a few days if it wasn't any better... But I should imagine looking at previous mark schemes this will only lose you a few marks so you'd still potentially be able to get 7/10 marks for just talking about s.20 GBH(AR and MR) supported by cases :-) and application