+1 (218) 451-4151 info@writersnest.org

Tort Law
Word Limit 1200 words
Olly owns an outdoor activity centre. At a trade show he saw a new range of protective goggles and overalls (designed for paint-balling). These were significantly cheaper than the ones he currently used at his centre. Some trade magazines had expressed doubts about the reliability of this cheaper range, based upon reports of three incidents where the equipment failed to offer adequate protection during live play. The manufacturer dismissed these as isolated incidents and blamed staff at the centres concerned for not fitting the equipment correctly or using it for activities it was not designed for.
Olly decided to replace his existing stock of paint ball safety equipment (goggles and overalls, both of which would have offered 100% protection) with the newer and cheaper range of goggles and overalls. Some weeks later, he received a telephone booking from the local Chamber of Commerce who were organising a charity paint balling day. Olly offered a generous discount because the event was for a good cause. The organiser told Olly that one of the party, Irfan, had an eye condition which would worsen if any paint made contact with his eye. Olly assured Irfan that the goggles supplied provided total, 100%, protection.
On the morning of the charity paint balling day, Olly noticed that a defect in one of the paint storage tanks had caused paint to leak onto the floor near the changing rooms. The usual procedure for dealing with such spillages was to close the centre until the paint had been cleaned up. Olly did not want to cancel the Chamber of Commerce event because of the financial consequences for the charities concerned. So, he hurriedly hosed the floor down and spread sand over the affected areas.
Later that day, Irfan suffered a serious eye injury when the new protective goggles shattered after being struck by a paintball. The group cancelled the rest of the activity and returned to the changing rooms. One of the party, Nelda, slipped on an untreated patch of floor and broke her arm. She also ruined her expensive designer jacket when some of the spilt paint soaked through the overalls she was wearing. She was wearing the new overalls Olly had purchased.
Discuss whether Olly will be liable in negligence for all, or any, of the losses suffered by Irfan and by Nelda arising out of these incidents. You are asked to focus on the standard of care expected from him.
OSCOLA  Quick Reference Guide
Primary Sources
Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate
citations with a semi-colon.
Give the party names, followed by the neutral
citation, followed by the  Law Reports  citation (eg AC,
Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law
Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If
the case is not reported in the  Law Reports , cite the
All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008]
1 AC 884
R (Roberts) v Parole Board  [2004] EWCA Civ
1031, [2005] QB 410
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in
square brackets at the end of the citation. If the
judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the
page number pinpoint after the court.
Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1
WLR 2112 [42], [45]
Bunt v Tilley  [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3
All ER 336 [1]–[37]
R v Leeds County  Court, ex p Morris  [1990] QB
523 (QB) 530–31
If citing a particular judge:
Arscott v The Coal Authority  [2004] EWCA Civ
892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ)
Statutes and statutory instruments
Act of Supremacy 1558
Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)
Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment
of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166
EU legislation and cases
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European
Union [2008] OJ C115/13
Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control
of concentrations between undertakings (EC
Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5
Case C–176/03 Commission v Council  [2005] ECR
I–7879, paras 47–48
European Court of Human Rights
Omojudi v UK  (2009) 51 EHRR 10
Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124
Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20
July 2004)
Simpson v UK  (1989) 64 DR 188
Secondary Sources
Give the author’s name in the same form as in the
publication, except in bibliographies, where you
should give only the surname followed by the
initial(s). Give relevant information about editions,
translators and so forth before the publisher, and
give page numbers at the end of the citation, after
the brackets.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan  (first published 1651,
Penguin 1985) 268
Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution
(1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)
K Zweigert and H Kötz,  An Introduction to
Comparative Law  (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP
Contributions to edited books
Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’
in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds),
Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks
(OUP 2006)
Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53
Journal articles
Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in
Public Law’ [2005] PL 440
When pinpointing, put a comma between the first
page of the article and the page pinpoint.
JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political
(2001) 117 LQR 42, 64
Online journals
Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development
of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010)
1(1)  EJLT < http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 >
accessed 27 July 2010
Command papers and Law Commission reports
Department for International Development,
Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common
Future  (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5
Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com
No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17
Websites and blogs
Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’
(Naked Law, 1 May 2009) accessed 19 November
Newspaper articles
Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’
Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3