Seminar 7 - BL101- Wells v Cooper by Claire Turner

Link to OSCOLA Quick reference guide

claire43 — 2021-11-18 10:05:02 UTC

1) What tortious1 issues are raised by this case? [10%]

claire43 — 2021-11-18 10:06:38 UTC

Facts - basics - Defendant installed a door handle with nails that were too short. Visitor opened the door, the handle fell off and he fell down some stairs injuring himself.

Area law - Negligence - Breach

Issue - 'held' section can be useful to identify the issue. Do not refer to this section in qu 2 and 3.

In relation to the standard of care in fixing the handle to the door.

2) Explain the arguments upon which the appeal was based. [25%]

claire43 — 2021-11-18 10:21:23 UTC

Plaintiff -

Standard skilled carpenter1
Provided foresight of the harm is in existence, it is not necessary to foresee the actual harm 2
Factual - Too short and therefore breach
There is one standard of care which is not variable
Thomas Cremin

Defence -

Lay person standard of care - Repeating citation - https://libguides.swansea.ac.uk/Oscola/RepeatingCitations
Blyth v Birmingham
Task related - question of degree to be decided by judge on fact, variable.

Footnote

Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 Q.B. 265, 268
Bolton v Stone [1951] A.C. 850
Wells (n1)
Blyth v Birmingham

3) What was the judgment of the Court of Appeal and explain the legal reasoning of that court in either allowing or dismissing the appeal? [65%]

claire43 — 2021-11-18 10:42:11 UTC

Wells v Cooper

claire43 — 2022-11-08 12:44:00 UTC

Link to Prezi on Negligence

claire43 — 2022-11-08 12:44:04 UTC

Link to Prezi on Causation

claire43 — 2022-11-08 12:44:08 UTC

Link to Prezi on Remoteness

claire43 — 2022-11-08 12:44:12 UTC

Xavier left his car parked in the steep driveway of his house. An hour later it rolled into the road. Nick, who was approaching negligently in his car, had to swerve to avoid the runaway vehicle, and, as a result, collided with a lamppost. Nick's car was damaged. Nick was injured and a rare vase on the back seat was smashed. As a result of the accident Nick was unable to buy his usual lottery ticket, which, as it transpired, contained a winning line. When he was taken to hospital, the surgeon, Soraya, told Nick that she was going to use a new technique in operating with lasers, but omitted to tell him that the ninety-eight per cent success rate which she claimed for this method was not conclusively proved. Soraya then carried out the operation negligently but Nick also suffered from a stroke. The effect of everything was to leave Nick permanently paralysed. Advise Nick on any claims he may have in the law of tort. In particular, consider: Does Xavier owe Nick a duty of care? Has Xavier breached his duty of care? What harm has Xavier caused? Will Xavier have any defences available to him? Has Soraya breached her duty of care? What harm has Soraya caused? Can Xavier use Soraya's contribution to the situation to reduce his liability?

claire43 — 2022-11-08 15:40:41 UTC