Problem Question Example for Legal Writing

Problem Question Example for Legal Writing

1. Alia v Travis

   • 1. T owes A a duty of care - Relevant test for duty of care is Caparo v Dickman but might not have to use 3 stage test since there could be an analogous precedent
   • 2. Has T breached his duty towards A?
     • We are not told if he is riding his bike recklessly
     • Has T's cycling fallen below the standard of care required of him?
       • What are the relevant factors to take into consideration in establishing breach?
   • 3.Causation - is there a causal link between T's breach of duty (assuming that breach and causation are established) and the harm suffered?
     • What is the harm/damage that A has suffered? - Personal injury by way of broken wrists, personality change and potentially a broken phone but unsure about status of phone.
     • Relevant legal test here is the 'but for test'. But for T's negligence would A have suffered the harm? No but has there been a break in the chain of causation?
     • Potential break in the chain of causation due to the incorrect treatment by the first doctor? Possibly not as per Gregg v Scott so T would remain liable. On the balance of probabilities, A would have suffered the harm as a result of the initial injury caused by T.
     • Is the personal injury suffered by A too remote a consequence of T's negligence? Unlikely.
     • Can A hold T liable for he subsequent incarceration because of her personality change which led to her stabbing a customer? See Gray v Thames Train - it is likely that T will only be liable up until A's criminal act.
   • 4. Defences - T could argue that he liability should reflect A's contributory negligence since she was texting whilst crossing the road and she would have been paying careful attention whilst crossing. See T v A since T blames A for the accident.
   • 5. Remedies - compensation ideally

2. Alia v Dr Drag (This could be incorporated into the discussion re the break in the chain of causation when discussing A v T)

   • A would argue that D owes her a duty of care as a patient - rather than using the criteria set out in Caparo, an analogous precedent could be used to establish a duty of care.
   • There has been a breach of duty because he incorrectly treats A. Using Bolam and Bolitho, the incorrect treatment could be seen as failing to withstand a logical basis.
   • Did D cause the harm? Applying the but for test, no since on the balance of probabilities, A would have suffered from the pain in her wrists in any event. There is no causal link between the harm suffered and D's negligence.

3. Customer v Alia

   • The Customer would like to bring a claim again A for personal injury - trepass to the person - battery
     • It is a direct, immediate and intentional tort
       • Difficult for A to find a defence so A is liable for damages in consequence of her tort. A could could argue that T is responsible and that it is not a remote consequence of T's negligence
         • Similar to the decision in Gray v Thames Trains. A could argue that T is responsible as there is no break in the chain of causation
           • A is unlikely to b able to claim for damages from T after her criminal ac. A is likely to be the party responsible fro paying compensation to the customer not T.

4. Travis v Alia (This could be incorporated into the discussion on contributory negligence alleged by T against A)

   • T could argue that A owes a duty of care which she breach and caused damage to his bicycle.
   • T could argue that A is liable for all losses directly flowing from the negligence.

5. Charlie v A/T

   • Charlie will presumably bring a claim against T since if T had not hit A, A's phone would not have flown out of her hand with such force so as to hit C.
     • Breach - duty is owed to foreseeable victims.
       • But for T's negligence, A would not be hit and her phone would not have flown out of her hand and hit C. But for T's negligence, C would not have lost vision in his good eye.
         • Remoteness, Smith v Leech Brain, you take your victim as you find them - the fact that this claimant is more sensitive does not preclude his claim.