Badges: 3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
South East University has a distance learning programme. As part of this programme, it occasionally sends lecturers to teach students in prisons, believing that this is for the benefit of society because it will help rehabilitate them into society once they have served their sentences. Adam, one of South East University's lecturers, volunteers to teach in Brightwell Prison because he is offered a bonus to do so. When he arrives, a prison guard, Steve, locks him in a cell with Jacob, a serial killer who is known for his bad temper, so that they can 'have some privacy'. During the teaching session, Jacob becomes so frustrated that he Attacks Adam, severely wounding him with a weapon he has made in prison out of a toothbrush and a razor blade. Adam collapses on the floor.Steve opens the cell door and tries to rescue Adam, but accidentally steps on his head, crushing his skull and killing him. Advise Adam's widow, Kiera.

What is this question about? I thought it was about vicarious liability (Steve), Battery (Jacob), False imprisonment, and negligence of Steve - crushing his skull and killing him. Please help.
Badges: 22
Report 3 years ago
You're missing the potential negligence of the uni. Offered bonus. You have the vicarious liability of HMP for the acts of its servant, Steve.

You're missing whether or not Adam consented to being imprisoned. This affects whether or not he was falsely imprisoned. It might also serve as volenti non fit injuria, taking upon the risk himself, for the torts relating to his being attacked and being stepped on.

You should also consider whether as a practical matter you could sue, considering trespass against the person in this case is extreme and would likely be dealt with criminally. The vicarious liability would likely not be, though corp homicide and manslaughter do exist (though probably not applicable here). I would provide some authority for Adam's wife being able to sue in Adam's place.

Remember, just because there is little point to suing for battery against Jacob does not mean you should not talk about the underlying liability of Jacob for the acts; same for corp manslaughter and the wife's being able to sue. These issues are for the end of your PQ response where you consider remedies.

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
new posts
to top
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.


Do you think mandatory Relationships and Sex Education in secondary schools is a good idea?

Yes (367)
No (69)

Watched Threads

View All