AQA A-level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]

Hey guys
Regarding aqa law paper 2, I haven't found any forums so if you guys want to put your thoughts and predictions for the upcoming exam, then please do!

what are people hoping for

im hoping for economic loss (negligent misstatement) and vicarious liability what about u

occupiers liability and vicarious liablity/ rvf
im not sure how to structure essays on economic loss tbh
do i have to include duty of care, breach of duty and then economic loss ?

For PEL/ negligent misstatement you first need your intro and must include the following:

1) Foreseeability of some economic loss
2) prove `special relationship`
3) D knows or ought to have known the purpose for which the C had sought the advice
4)D knows or ought to have known that the C was likely to rely on their statement
5) D voluntarily assumes responsibility for their statement
6) C relies on the D`s statement to his detriment
7) C reasonably relies on the D`s statement

You then need to prove breach of duty and that breach caused damage i.e., prove factual and legal causation.

Conclude

Consider if contributory negligence defence under the Law Reform Act 1945 applies

Mention remedy i.e., any special or general defences that the C would be entitled to if breach and damage are proven on the part of the D.

does anyone know how to structure negligence questions? I was taught Caparo before but I've now been told that AQA have updated it this year and its now the Robinson test?

what other questions can come up as q9 other than morality and fault

I was only taught the Robinson test, so I don't know what exactly you're missing. I've written the structure below.

Negligence is based on the neighbour principle established in Donoughe v Stevenson. Firstly, the defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care. Robinson held that the three-stage Caparo v Dickman test is not necessary so long as the duty of care is obvious.

Secondly, the defendant must breach their duty of care. In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, Alderson B. defined this as 'doing or not doing something that a reasonable person would or would not do.'

We must now consider the relevant characteristics:
1. Expert - judged by standard of reasonable expert. (Bollom/Bolitho)
2. Beginner - judged by standard of reasonable expert. (Nettleship v Weston)
3. Children - judged by the standard of children the same age. (Mullins v Richards)

We must now consider the risk factors, which have the potential to raise or lower the standard of care expected from the defendant.
1. Probability of harm - if the probability of injury is high, the standard of care will rise in conjunction. (Bolton v Stone)
2. Magnitude of the risk - if the probability of damages is high, the standard of care will rise in conjunction. (Paris v Stepney Council)
3. Cost and practicality - considers if there were any cost or practical barriers preventing the defendant from taking greater care. (Latimer)

Social utility (side rule) - if there was a greater benefit to society in the defendant taking the risk, they may not be liable. (Watt v Herefordshire Council).

It must now be established that the defendant was the factual and legal cause of the damages:
1. Factual cause - 'but for the defendant's actions, would the result have happened anyway? (Barnett)
2. Legal cause - the remoteness of damage test: were the damages not too remote, meaning were they reasonably foreseeable? If so, the defendant can claim. (Wagon Mound)

So long as the injuries are foreseeable, the defendant can claim. This applies even if the injuries occurred in an unforeseeable way. (Hughes v Lord Advocate).

Rescuers (side rule) - rescuers can only be sued if they make a positive act which causes foreseeable injury. (Robinson)

Emergency workers - emergency workers can only be sued if they make the risk substantially higher. Generally, however, emergency service workers cannot be sued in the public interest. (Osman v United Kingdom)

According to the thin skull rule, the defendant must take their claimant as they find them. (Robinson v Post Office)

Theories of tort.

It's all about public interest - so you'd define public interest, talk about how it's integrant to our legal system and factors judges consider when their outcomes create new law (i.e. fair, just, etc.)

Then you'd use some links from tort to make your example. For example, rare is it that a court will allow someone to sue an emergency service worker, as it would open the 'floodgates' to more lawsuits and deter workers from performing their job correctly in fear of being sued - not in the public interest.

Hope that makes sense.

It's all about public interest - so you'd define public interest, talk about how it's integrant to our legal system and factors judges consider when their outcomes create new law (i.e. fair, just, etc.)

Then you'd use some links from tort to make your example. For example, rare is it that a court will allow someone to sue an emergency service worker, as it would open the 'floodgates' to more lawsuits and deter workers from performing their job correctly in fear of being sued - not in the public interest.

Hope that makes sense.

ok perfect thank you - so I can talk about the floodgates of litigation! how would you define public interest?