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

I talked about them in the context of primary victim, how many marks do you think I’ll lose

Was Zen not a primary victim as they were directly involved in the incident since it said they saw it?

How did everyone answer the 1st 5 marker, it stumped me

today's exam was interesting. just so grateful that it was fault and vicarious liability!!!!

and no occupiers liability!!!

I used Watt v Hertfordshire Council instead of Bolton v Stone because of the 'importance of the activity' outweighing duty of care, as the risk was socially important (saving someones life)

He was a secondary victim and he wasn’t in the zone of danger from the ambulance, however he could claim whilst Yasmin couldn’t as she didn’t witness the event and wasn’t in the immediate aftermath considering she was in the shower and it was saying ‘eventually’ indicating some time had passed since the ambulance collision between Will and Xavier.

mfw I spend two years learning and revising Occupier's Liability only for it to not come up at all

soooo annoyed is an understatement

Nuisance - liable. Injunction for night time, not for day time as only affects tv (hunter v Canary Wharf) also public benefit would outweigh at day time (miller v Jackson)
RvF - straight forward. Liable, defence of stranger fails as D is aware of the action.
Negligence - complicated, not liable as I found no DOC as not J,F,R (Hill v CC West Yorkshire) and no breach, ambulance can’t go slower due to emergency, also contributory negligence.
Nervous shock 1 - not liable fails Alcock test (prox of relationship)
Nervous shock 2 - not liable as again I argued D not negligent!

Yh I got that too. I said if she had answered the door when zen was calling for her and saw will in his state when he had just gotten hit then that would’ve been fine but as she only witnessed him in tears it doesnt qualify as immediate aftermath

i said the mum failed bcos of the ronayne v liverpool womens hospital case that a hospital sight is not sufficient enough for psychiatric injury do you think that’s okay - i said she didn’t witness the horrific event but didn’t use a case for the time proximity, just the womens hospital one

I agree with the majority apart from the liability in psychiatric harm. I said that the neighbour does satisfy the Alcock criteria. Although she doesn’t have close ties of love and affection she knew the boy since birth which was over 10 years which can be a close type of relationship. So I said she can claim for psychiatric harm

It’s the public policy situation, something I wrote about in the ELS section of Q11, the tests are so strict to limit the amount of people that can claim, I may be mistaken but I believe to pass the Alcock test, you have to be either parent/child or husband/wife relationship

today's exam was interesting. just so grateful that it was fault and vicarious liability!!!!

and no occupiers liability!!!

He was a secondary victim and he wasn’t in the zone of danger from the ambulance, however he could claim whilst Yasmin couldn’t as she didn’t witness the event and wasn’t in the immediate aftermath considering she was in the shower and it was saying ‘eventually’ indicating some time had passed since the ambulance collision between Will and Xavier.

It’s the public policy situation, something I wrote about in the ELS section of Q11, the tests are so strict to limit the amount of people that can claim, I may be mistaken but I believe to pass the Alcock test, you have to be either parent/child or husband/wife relationship

actually i've seen a lot of mixed views on whether he was a primary or secondary victim! personally i believe he was a primary victim as it states in the textbook that bystanders can claim for what they have seen. although i do also agree that he wasn't in the vicinity where he could've feared personal danger. i guess that's the debate the examiners wanted us to have

No l




Zen cannot claim. She doesn't pass step 1 of the Alcock criteria despite her being a close friend/neighbour as the close ties of love and affection only apply to Parents, Children and Spouses.

Yasmin, on the other hand, can claim.immediate aftermath passes Under McLoughlin v O'Brien and the case of Galli-Atkinson, the time lag was presumably less than 8 hours and courts accept anything up to 8 hours but prefer closer to 2.

And it was unaided senses. Xavier should've been found negligent and so both were secondary victims