Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is for all those who are taking the AQA A2 law exam in June on Tort and the Concepts of Law. This thread has been established early in view of retakes for LAWO3 and the need to pursue a steady process of revision until May - when solid, independent revision is required.

    The first topic to be discussed: Occupiers' Liability + Law and Morals.

    All ideas, questions and model answers are welcome
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should start with Occupiers' Liability under the 1957 Act. I'll get cracking and produce some notes for this thread
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Fixed up some cases for Occupiers' Liability, their pretty simply but that's the beauty of them. I've just spent like 40 minutes reading over then and have finally learnt every single one Please let us know if I'm missing any and I'll also try getting some more up.

    An ‘Occupier’: ‘Exercises a sufficient degree of control over who can enter the premises’ WHEAT v LACONThe owners of a pub put it in the hands of a manager, who was authorised to take lodgers. One lodger was injured whilst using an unlit staircase. HOL held that the owners could be sued because they retained some control over the state of the premises (not liable)

    HARRIS v BIRKENHEAD CORPORATIONCouncil were found liable for injuries suffered by a four-year-old boy on their property. They had asserted right to control the property, even though they hadn’t physically entered into possession.

    ‘Premises’: ‘Includes land, buildings and other permanent or temporary structures’
    WHEELERS v COPAS A builder working on a property was injured on a ‘ladder’ which was lent to him. The judge said ‘a ladder could under some circumstances be premises’ however, Copas was no longer the occupier since he had no control over the ladder at the relevant time.

    ‘Visitors’: ‘Someone who has express or implied permission from the occupier or in exercise of a legal right (police, bailiffs, fire-fighters)’
    TOMLINSON v CONGLETON An 18-year-old youth went to a park owned by the Borough Council. There was warning signs around a disguised quarry (lake), but he ignored these and dived into the lake and suffered head injuries. He had permission to use the park but exceeded the scope of permission by disregarding the warning.

    WARD v TESCOA customer slipped on some spilled yoghurt and was injured. She was a lawful visitor with permission to be there (through advertising and the nature of the environment), and therefore they owed her a duty of care.

    Common DOC’: ‘To take care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose which he is invited/permitted to be there’
    COLE v DAVIS-GILBERT A women walking across village green accidentally put her foot in a hole (hidden by grass) and broke her leg. The hole had been dug to hold a maypole at a fete to years before. It had been filled with a wooden plug after the fete but someone has removed it. The fete organisers and owner weren’t prosecuted because they had taken reasonable care and weren’t expected to do anymore than that.

    SAWYER v SIMONDSA pub customer feel and cut his hand on a broken glass, the hotel owners weren’t liable because they had a system whereby the hall porter checked the state of the bar every 20 minutes, and this was reasonable care.

    DARBY v NATIONAL TRUST A man drowned while swimming in a pond, and his wife sued under the 1957 Act. During the appeal, Mary LJ said ‘the danger of drowning is small but obvious, so that NT had no duty to warn against it’.

    ‘Children’: ‘Under s.2(3)(a) the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful on the premises, and must allow for the fact that some dangers may present special attractions for children. An allurement sufficiently powerful may even persuade the court to treat a trespassing child as if he were a lawful visitor’
    GLASGOW CORPORATION v TAYLOR A seven-year-old boy died from eating poisonous berries from a public bush in a public park. The corp was held liable because they knew they were poisonous and should have realised they would be attractive to children, and they did nothing to warn of the danger.

    JOLLEY v SUTTONA fourteen-year-old boy was injured when an old boat fell on him. The boat had been left abandoned for 2 years on a grassy area near council flats, and they boy and his friends propped it up with a car jack whilst trying to repair it. The judge decided the boat was something that would allure the children.

    ‘Tradesman’: ‘ An occupier who invites tradesman or other professionals to enter his premises is entitled to assume that they are aware of any special risks associated with that work and they will take precautions accordingly’
    ROLES v NATHANChimney sweeps died because of fumes and families of the sweepers failed because they had been warned and should have been aware of the particular dangers.

    ‘Warning notices’: ‘An occupier may seek to discharge his common duty of care by giving a verbal warning or displaying a warning notice, though there’s no specific obligation (particularly when it’s an obvious danger)’
    RAE v MARS UK- D was liable for failing to give adequate warning.

    ‘Volenti non fit injuria’: ‘Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 s.2(5)- Risks willingly accepted by visitors’
    SIMMS v LEIGH RFCDuring rugby match a visiting player was tackled near the edge of the pitch, collided with a concrete walls and a broke his leg. He sued the home club for his injuries resulting from the dangerous state of their premises. It was found that he was volenti to the risk of injury on a ground laid out in accordance with league rules. It was also not proven that his injury resulted from collision with the wall, it could have been from the tackle alone
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    x
    You've obviously gone to a lot of effort and trouble. I'm not sure how much detail you're expected to know for A level. That said, some of these are quite oversimplified, and I'm not sure you've got the really central point.

    For example, there's no question in Ward v Tesco that the shopper was a visitor and owed a duty of care. The key point of law is that they had not discharged the common doc. On the facts, the defendants could not prove that the yoghurt had only been spilled for a few seconds, and the plaintiff did not have to prove that the yoghurt *hadn't* only just been spilled.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    Fixed up some cases for Occupiers' Liability, their pretty simply but that's the beauty of them. I've just spent like 40 minutes reading over then and have finally learnt every single one Please let us know if I'm missing any and I'll also try getting some more up.

    An ‘Occupier’: ‘Exercises a sufficient degree of control over who can enter the premises’ WHEAT v LACONThe owners of a pub put it in the hands of a manager, who was authorised to take lodgers. One lodger was injured whilst using an unlit staircase. HOL held that the owners could be sued because they retained some control over the state of the premises (not liable)

    HARRIS v BIRKENHEAD CORPORATIONCouncil were found liable for injuries suffered by a four-year-old boy on their property. They had asserted right to control the property, even though they hadn’t physically entered into possession.

    ‘Premises’: ‘Includes land, buildings and other permanent or temporary structures’
    WHEELERS v COPAS A builder working on a property was injured on a ‘ladder’ which was lent to him. The judge said ‘a ladder could under some circumstances be premises’ however, Copas was no longer the occupier since he had no control over the ladder at the relevant time.

    ‘Visitors’: ‘Someone who has express or implied permission from the occupier or in exercise of a legal right (police, bailiffs, fire-fighters)’
    TOMLINSON v CONGLETON An 18-year-old youth went to a park owned by the Borough Council. There was warning signs around a disguised quarry (lake), but he ignored these and dived into the lake and suffered head injuries. He had permission to use the park but exceeded the scope of permission by disregarding the warning.

    WARD v TESCOA customer slipped on some spilled yoghurt and was injured. She was a lawful visitor with permission to be there (through advertising and the nature of the environment), and therefore they owed her a duty of care.

    Common DOC’: ‘To take care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose which he is invited/permitted to be there’
    COLE v DAVIS-GILBERT A women walking across village green accidentally put her foot in a hole (hidden by grass) and broke her leg. The hole had been dug to hold a maypole at a fete to years before. It had been filled with a wooden plug after the fete but someone has removed it. The fete organisers and owner weren’t prosecuted because they had taken reasonable care and weren’t expected to do anymore than that.

    SAWYER v SIMONDSA pub customer feel and cut his hand on a broken glass, the hotel owners weren’t liable because they had a system whereby the hall porter checked the state of the bar every 20 minutes, and this was reasonable care.

    DARBY v NATIONAL TRUST A man drowned while swimming in a pond, and his wife sued under the 1957 Act. During the appeal, Mary LJ said ‘the danger of drowning is small but obvious, so that NT had no duty to warn against it’.

    ‘Children’: ‘Under s.2(3)(a) the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful on the premises, and must allow for the fact that some dangers may present special attractions for children. An allurement sufficiently powerful may even persuade the court to treat a trespassing child as if he were a lawful visitor’
    GLASGOW CORPORATION v TAYLOR A seven-year-old boy died from eating poisonous berries from a public bush in a public park. The corp was held liable because they knew they were poisonous and should have realised they would be attractive to children, and they did nothing to warn of the danger.

    JOLLEY v SUTTONA fourteen-year-old boy was injured when an old boat fell on him. The boat had been left abandoned for 2 years on a grassy area near council flats, and they boy and his friends propped it up with a car jack whilst trying to repair it. The judge decided the boat was something that would allure the children.

    ‘Tradesman’: ‘ An occupier who invites tradesman or other professionals to enter his premises is entitled to assume that they are aware of any special risks associated with that work and they will take precautions accordingly’
    ROLES v NATHANChimney sweeps died because of fumes and families of the sweepers failed because they had been warned and should have been aware of the particular dangers.

    ‘Warning notices’: ‘An occupier may seek to discharge his common duty of care by giving a verbal warning or displaying a warning notice, though there’s no specific obligation (particularly when it’s an obvious danger)’
    RAE v MARS UK- D was liable for failing to give adequate warning.

    ‘Volenti non fit injuria’: ‘Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 s.2(5)- Risks willingly accepted by visitors’
    SIMMS v LEIGH RFCDuring rugby match a visiting player was tackled near the edge of the pitch, collided with a concrete walls and a broke his leg. He sued the home club for his injuries resulting from the dangerous state of their premises. It was found that he was volenti to the risk of injury on a ground laid out in accordance with league rules. It was also not proven that his injury resulted from collision with the wall, it could have been from the tackle alone
    Cool. I have near enough the same, but a few more cases. By the way, I think it is better to learn what the actual case's legal importance is rather than what happened in it (unless it is a really unique situation which is of pure relevance to the legal point).

    I will do some revision over the weekend and put all I know on here.

    Keep it up
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjarvis)
    You've obviously gone to a lot of effort and trouble. I'm not sure how much detail you're expected to know for A level. That said, some of these are quite oversimplified, and I'm not sure you've got the really central point.

    For example, there's no question in Ward v Tesco that the shopper was a visitor and owed a duty of care. The key point of law is that they had not discharged the common doc. On the facts, the defendants could not prove that the yoghurt had only been spilled for a few seconds, and the plaintiff did not have to prove that the yoghurt *hadn't* only just been spilled.
    A-level is of course a much more simplified version of undergraduate law. However, to aim for an A* in the A-level, you are required to read undergraduate law textbooks. I am currently using one for Tort.

    I think the A-level is more about explanation than detail. The A-level textbooks are pretty poor and basic though.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    A-level is of course a much more simplified version of undergraduate law. However, to aim for an A* in the A-level, you are required to read undergraduate law textbooks. I am currently using one for Tort.

    I think the A-level is more about explanation than detail. The A-level textbooks are pretty poor and basic though.
    In no way shape or form do you needundergraduate text books to get an A*. Whoever told you that was wrong.


    (Original post by pinda.college)
    'lots of cases'
    I have top say from looking at your notes, i think you may be focusing in the wrong area.
    If these are your revision notes, you seem to be focusing too much on the details of the case itself, and not on the law.

    When i did law a level my notes consisted of the name n date etc, perhaps one short sentence summarising the details (for example a woman tripping in tesco) and the majority of the notes were why it is important, if it over-ruled another case or whatever. You should remember facts of the case itself, such as how they were injured etc, so tbh over-time you can simply take them out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    A-level is of course a much more simplified version of undergraduate law. However, to aim for an A* in the A-level, you are required to read undergraduate law textbooks. I am currently using one for Tort.

    I think the A-level is more about explanation than detail. The A-level textbooks are pretty poor and basic though.
    Undergrad textbooks to get an A*?

    Well the girls in my class who got A*'s last year used this and this

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    In no way shape or form do you needundergraduate text books to get an A*. Whoever told you that was wrong.




    I have top say from looking at your notes, i think you may be focusing in the wrong area.
    If these are your revision notes, you seem to be focusing too much on the details of the case itself, and not on the law.

    When i did law a level my notes consisted of the name n date etc, perhaps one short sentence summarising the details (for example a woman tripping in tesco) and the majority of the notes were why it is important, if it over-ruled another case or whatever. You should remember facts of the case itself, such as how they were injured etc, so tbh over-time you can simply take them out.
    I used the same method you used and mastered three textbooks, yet somehow got an A and not an A* in my January exam.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    When i did law a level my notes consisted of the name n date etc, perhaps one short sentence summarising the details (for example a woman tripping in tesco) and the majority of the notes were why it is important, if it over-ruled another case or whatever. You should remember facts of the case itself, such as how they were injured etc, so tbh over-time you can simply take them out.
    This, definitely! Also to get the top marks in A Level law one of the key things you need to do is apply the law to the scenario! My law teacher was an examiner, and she said you can only get a small amount of marks if you write down everything you know, yet not apply it to the scenarios. Obviously, this doesn't count towards the concepts question, but would for tort.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    I used the same method you used and mastered three textbooks, yet somehow got an A and not an A* in my January exam.
    Is this the Unit 3 one? Tbf, the paper you had was much more difficult than the one I did in Jan '10, I wouldn't of liked to have an evaluation of defences question. Are you retaking this exam too? Hopefully you'll get some better questions
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teaandcoffee)
    Undergrad textbooks to get an A*?

    Well the girls in my class who got A*'s last year used this and this

    I used both of those and literally remembered every single case relevant to LAW03, with a concise method and 'sound' exam approach yet got an A
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    I used both of those and literally remembered every single case relevant to LAW03, with a concise method and 'sound' exam approach yet got an A
    What UMS?

    You can always aim for 100 UMS in Unit 4, then you would have over 180 UMS and an A*? How do you feel about the concepts? Hopefully law and morality will come up for you guys
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teaandcoffee)
    Is this the Unit 3 one? Tbf, the paper you had was much more difficult than the one I did in Jan '10, I wouldn't of liked to have an evaluation of defences question. Are you retaking this exam too? Hopefully you'll get some better questions
    I am indeed retaking it. I am not applying for law at university, but I am predicted an A* this year so my teachers are demanding I step up to get it. I am thus in a kind of limbo as I cannot go backwards, yet am unsure as to how to go forward.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    To everyone saying that I should remember the 'law' behind the cases, I've only gone into depth with these cases because I find I learn them easier by knowing what actually happened I'll remember to mention the actual law behind any future cases I post.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teaandcoffee)
    This, definitely! Also to get the top marks in A Level law one of the key things you need to do is apply the law to the scenario! My law teacher was an examiner, and she said you can only get a small amount of marks if you write down everything you know, yet not apply it to the scenarios. Obviously, this doesn't count towards the concepts question, but would for tort.
    Oh, this must be where I went wrong! I put a huge amount of knowledge into the LAWO3 paper (no less than 60 detailed cases, with 10-15 quotes and 8 statutes and their sections) yet I think I must of slacked in applying it all

    I also did not do one single past paper when I was revising for the exam lol. This all seems to explain why I did worse than some people who had significantly less case authority and legal knowledge! Thanks! You're 10x better than any of my law teachers ha
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Oh, this must be where I went wrong! I put a huge amount of knowledge into the LAWO3 paper (no less than 60 detailed cases, with 10-15 quotes and 8 statutes and their sections) yet I think I must of slacked in applying it all

    I also did not do one single past paper when I was revising for the exam lol. This all seems to explain why I did worse than some people who had significantly less case authority and legal knowledge! Thanks! You're 10x better than any of my law teachers ha
    Don't worry its okay Just remember for Law 03, to be like (for example), murder is blah blah blah... dim res is blah blah blah, provo is blah blah blah, and then after each point explain how it applies to the scenario. (I can't really remember much of law 03, but like, In the scenario, Fred is seen to have been provoked by Sarah's accusations....' or whatever it is.)

    Applying takes a lot of practise to 'get' the technique needed for the exam. But if you start doing some past papers now, for your retake and also for the law 04 exam, then you will be fine

    EDIT: Because it seems like you know the content perfectly well, all you need know is just to apply that knowledge to the scenarios, and then I bet you will get even better grades
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teaandcoffee)
    Don't worry its okay Just remember for Law 03, to be like (for example), murder is blah blah blah... dim res is blah blah blah, provo is blah blah blah, and then after each point explain how it applies to the scenario. (I can't really remember much of law 03, but like, In the scenario, Fred is seen to have been provoked by Sarah's accusations....' or whatever it is.)

    Applying takes a lot of practise to 'get' the technique needed for the exam. But if you start doing some past papers now, for your retake and also for the law 04 exam, then you will be fine

    EDIT: Because it seems like you know the content perfectly well, all you need know is just to apply that knowledge to the scenarios, and then I bet you will get even better grades
    Ah, merci beaucoup! haha. I will only need to brush up a bit on my LAWO3 knowledge and then spend 3 weeks doing 4-6 past papers then. Did your examiner of a teacher ever tell you how much detail is sufficient for a really high grade? I remember every case date, name and legal principle; is this enough?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    Ah, merci beaucoup! haha. I will only need to brush up a bit on my LAWO3 knowledge and then spend 3 weeks doing 4-6 past papers then. Did your examiner of a teacher ever tell you how much detail is sufficient for a really high grade? I remember every case date, name and legal principle; is this enough?
    Well for a high grade you need a 'sound' answer, and to be honest, its quite vague about what looks like a 'sound answer'. For example, one person would think one answer is sound, but another person would call it a clear answer.

    You don't need to remember every single case/legal principle/date. I only ever remembered the dates of Acts of Parliament, such as the Homicide Act 1957 (please tell me thats the right date..), and then for cases I just remembered the names, and then a basic conclusion about what happened in the case. And then APPLY it to the scenario, and you will be fine.

    Also, always write a conclusion. Starting with something like 'Based on the evidence given above, it can be argued that Dave committed murder as he..., nonetheless, there are also arguments that he could be given a lighter sentence due to him being eligible for diminished responsibility' etc etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teaandcoffee)
    Well for a high grade you need a 'sound' answer, and to be honest, its quite vague about what looks like a 'sound answer'. For example, one person would think one answer is sound, but another person would call it a clear answer.

    You don't need to remember every single case/legal principle/date. I only ever remembered the dates of Acts of Parliament, such as the Homicide Act 1957 (please tell me thats the right date..), and then for cases I just remembered the names, and then a basic conclusion about what happened in the case. And then APPLY it to the scenario, and you will be fine.

    Also, always write a conclusion. Starting with something like 'Based on the evidence given above, it can be argued that Dave committed murder as he..., nonetheless, there are also arguments that he could be given a lighter sentence due to him being eligible for diminished responsibility' etc etc.
    Okay, this helps a lot. In my exam, I wrote the whole definition of murder and then finally said something like, "considering this, so-and-so is evidently liable for murder due to blablabla", haha.

    Thank you for your help! Somehow my law teachers (half of them being trained solicitors, apparently) have never managed to tell me of this. I wish you luck with your degree!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: August 18, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.