Law essay - Tort looking for a markerWatch
I am looking for someone who can grade my assessment that I handed in. Its actually my resit therefore I really want to know the approximate grade I would receive ... because I am honestly scared of failing.... so if I did I would know it earlier and start planning on doing much better....
I have attached it in here..
1) The answer is hopelessly confusing:
a) The way you have listed all the 'rules' in one section, then all the 'application' elsewhere, is not good. To take a random example - duty of care - the 'rule' is halfway down page 1, and the application of that rule is on page 3. You should have done something like 'issue - in order to successfully claim in negligence, C needs to show that D owes her a duty of care. rule - duty of care is owed when blah blah... case which is authority for that. application - the test is probably satisfied because x,y,z'... then move on to the next issue - presumably breach. The 'issue' should not be 'the entire question', break it down a bit.
b) You seem to have thrown in a bit about the ambulance not owing a duty in the 'rule' section, rather than the 'application' section, which is not consistent with the way you've answered the rest of the question. In any case, if the ambulance crew are a separate potential tortfeasor they should be dealt with separately.
2) Most of the 'rules' you have stated are at best extremely unclear or at worst, totally wrong. For example, legal causation (I'm not sure what you mean but if I can't make sense of it, probably the marker can't either).
3) You've totally misunderstood the Occupiers' Liability Act. The section you've stated shows that Gina owes Steven a duty of care. But that doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the question. If you're claiming that Steven is also an occupier and therefore owes Gina a duty of care under the OLA then (i) I think you're wrong, but (ii) you need to substantiate that in some way.
4) The whole bit about contract is confusing and mostly nonsensical. This is a tort essay, right? Stick to saying that Steven may also be liable in contract, then, without waffling about UCTA and C(ROT)PA. There is nothing in the answer that suggests they are even remotely relevant anyway, although hard to say without seeing the question. The relevant statutory provision if you want to explore contractual liability is likely to be s 12 SOGSA anyway.
5) The application section is woeful, but perhaps it would benefit from an improvement to the structure, where you apply the rules that you've just stated before moving on to another issue.
6) The standard of English and the grammar is very poor. Perhaps you won't fail automatically for that but you may lose some marks. At best it makes it harder for the marker to understand what you meant.
7) The way you've cited cases isn't even consistent. None of them have a correct citation. Look at how your university expects you to cite cases, then just copy that.
8) The bibliography is an absolute joke. Neither of the books are tort textbooks. Instead of giving a list of cases you've given a wikipedia link to one case. STOP USING WIKIPEDIA. Use books, Westlaw, Lexis, whatever, and actually read the cases and cite them properly. What the hell is the list of internet resources? Most of them don't figure in the answer and the marker will be puzzled as to how they're relevant... British dental journal? You don't need to provide a link to an explanation of IRAC, although it might help if you'd read it yourself...
9) Statutes. You don't need to give an internet link to statutes. Just look at your university's style guide, and you'll see how you're supposed to cite them.
10) Cases. Probably don't need to say this but none of these are cited correctly. Some of them you haven't even got the name right.
11) I almost don't want to know but what's the last sentence in the conclusion about? I'm not disagreeing that HMRC are incompetent, they overcharged me tax by about £300 last year, but I can't imagine how they even come in to the question.
12) What's the word limit for this? I assume it's not 1100 words as that would be a strange number. If it's 1500 then the fact that you are so far short means, virtually for certain, that you have missed major issues. I'm even more certain about that given that most of the answer at the minute is irrelevant. If it's 2500 then you can be 100% sure that no answer, no matter how well written, that contains 1100 words can ever pass. You have missed something.
Without the question it's hard to give a mark. I think it must be less than 15% (and absolutely certain that it won't get 40%, or whatever the pass mark is).
I'm sorry to be harsh but the answer is so bad that I couldn't really find anything positive to say about it. This is a resit so presumably you have been trying to learn tort for two semesters, now. There is no evidence of any particular learning in the answer.
I suggest, if you have a resit left, that you actually try and learn, read the recommended textbooks and the cases, attend classes, etc. I get the feeling that not only do you not know any tort, you don't really have a clear idea *how to learn it*.