Well, I’m a third of the way through now and I’ve currently done as many exams as OJ; how does that work eh? Oh I remember now, something to do with 33,000 words. Anyway, Tort (all to do with duties of care, nuisance etc) had the same rubric as before: four questions, and at least two problem questions. The paper was quite good overall but the problems took ages to answer, so I was constantly clock-watching and cut short one so I could move on to the next one. Surprisingly, the examiners omitted two large areas of the course: there was no problem question on nuisance, and nothing on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (a strict liability rule to do with the “escape” of a “dangerous” thing after a “non-natural” use of land). But ho-hum, they can’t include everything, and it didn’t really bother me. I could have happily answered three essay questions and chose the two I eventually did rather carefully: this year’s “hot topic” is “causation” (there have been a couple of meaty, controversial cases) and I expect that every candidate would have been able to answer the question on causation in the paper. That’s quite bad from where I was sitting because there’s no way my answer is going to stand out from the rest. Consequently, I ditched that, and all the damn knowledge I had and completed two equally sound answers from the other questions. I think that was a good move. So, the questions:

[Quote by Lord Hoffman, extra-judicially regarding the liability of public authorities, and the justification for this liability]. To what extent is this an adequate explanation of the English law on tort liability of public authorities.

To what extent, if at all, is insurance, and the capacity of a party to insure against a loss or liability, relevant to tort liability? To what extent should it be?

And the problems in reduced form:

A public library had known for several years that skateboarders had used a platform outside the library to practice their skills. One day, “Harry” got injured – he was too “cool” to wear a helmet. Discussions of Occupier’s Liability, trespasser or visitor, contributory negligence, special protection for children. Harry’s incident caused Janet to lose control of her pushchair which sends her son into the road: she suffers PTS disorder (can she claim? ?thin skull principle applies because she had post natal depression?), and then Leo crashed his bike in order to stop hitting Harry. – there were lots more complicated twists, but that’s the gist.

Classic quote for this second problem: Nancy is driving her son Oliver to Oxford University for an interview to read Law. O has strong exam grades, but not sufficient to secure him a place at Oxford. O dreams of becoming a solicitor and working as a partner for a large city law firm. N drives negligently and crashes the car. Then a car (driven negligently) crashes into the ambulance carrying O and he is injured further as a result and the driver of the ambulance dies. The husband of the driver has a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, but there are issues regarding the fact that his relationship with his wife was “on the rocks” at the time of her death, and he is already seeking a new wife, through a singles club!

So there we go. All fun and games. As OJ noted, glancing through the rest of the paper, some of the questions really are thoroughly depressing! That’s all over now though, now on to the joys of Land Law. Oh dear.