As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a Law of Tort 1 assessment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments.
After completing the module, you should be able to:
Critically analyse the aims and legal principles of tort law and form basic evaluative judgements. Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills.
Select and apply the principles of tort law to problem and essay questions and reach reasoned conclusions in complex legal problems.
Present structured and supported legal arguments in time constrained conditions.
Communicate knowledge and understanding in written form using appropriate legal terminology.
Undertake critical analysis and reach reasoned and evidenced decisions, contribute problem-solving skills to find and innovate in solutions.
Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and a word count; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list in OSCOLA. You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work.
Maximum word count – 4000 words (Typically 3-4,000 words)
You must not include your name in your submission because Arden University operates anonymous marking, which means that markers should not be aware of the identity of the student. However, please do not forget to include your STU number.
Assignment Instructions Instructions:
This assessment should take you no longer than 3 4- hours and can to be completed at any point during 24-hour window. Please ensure you give yourself adequate time to upload your completed paper to Turnitin.
For further guidance on the TCA assessment please click on this link:
INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES
This paper contains FIVE questions.
You MUST answer the compulsory, pre-seen question in Part A Answer any three other questions from Part B
The compulsory question in Part A carries 40 marks All other questions carry 20 marks
You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate
and wide-ranging case law and statute.
Please turn over for questions
Page 3 of 7 
PART A – You MUST answer this question
1. Perry has just started work as an apprentice for Broosters Builders. Perry asks Bert, his boss, for a hard hat and also complains to him that Jakob and Tom keep playing jokes on him by removing safety clips on platforms where he is working. Bert tells Perry to grow up and stop moaning. One day a workmate loosens the safety clip on Perry’s scaffolding and Perry falls from the scaffolding breaking both legs and suffering a blow to the head. It transpires that at the time of the incident, rather than paying attention to the safety of his environment, Perry had been looking at his mobile telephone to see whether he had any texts from his girlfriend Alice.
At this moment in time, Perry’s girlfriend Alice was arriving at the building sit to go for lunch with Perry. As Alice arrived, she looked up at the scaffolding to wave at Perry and she witnessed the whole event. Ever since the event, Alison suffers from anxiety whenever she looks up at a height or down from a height. This has caused Alison to be absent from her job as a window cleaner
Perry is taken to Hopeless Hospital where a doctor diagnoses and treats Perry’s broken legs. The doctor does not notice that this is a complex fracture and as a result, Perry is permanently disabled. Had he been treated correctly, he would have made a full recovery.
Assess the possible liability of the parties
Please turn over for Part B
Page 4 of 7 
PART B – You MUST answer THREE questions from this section
Critically evaluate the extent to which a breach of the duty of care is assessed objectively against the standard of the ‘reasonable man’. Use case law to illustrate your answer.
Critically discuss the extent to which the rules on vicarious liability provide an extra avenue for litigation for negligent claimants?
Critically discuss the notion that negligence is based purely on conceptions of public policy.
“It is generally recognised that the rules governing recovery for damages for nervous shock lack coherence, logic, justice and even plain common sense.”
F.A.Trindade, ‘Reformulation of the Nervous Shock Rules’ (2003) 179 LQR 204
Critically evaluate the rules governing claims for psychiatric injury and consider the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement using case law to support your answer.
You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate and wide ranging academic research and ensure this is referenced using the OSCOLA system. The My Study Skills Area contains an OSCOLA Referencing Interactive Tutorial.
You must use the OSCOLA referencing method in your assignment.
Students are required to indicate the exact word count on the title page of the assessment.
The word count excludes the title page, tables, figures, diagrams, footnotes, reference list and appendices. Where assessment questions have been reprinted from the assessment brief these will also be excluded from the word count. ALL other printed words ARE included in the word count See ‘Word Count Policy’ on the homepage of this module for more information.