Law of Tort Assignment.
On Saturday evening a Knight Theatre Company production of Hello Dolly at the historical BradColl Theatre turned into a horror show after a series of serious incidents.
The first happened before the theatre doors had been opened.
Show producer Jeramiah Jones had arrived at the theatre to find the lights off and the auditorium shrouded in darkness. He climbed a spiral staircase looking for the light switch when he found an unmarked and unlocked door. Hidden behind it was the balcony, which had been used in the balcony scene in a production of Romeo and Juliet. He opened the door and plummeted 10ft (3m) onto the stage below. He is now a paraplegic.
The second incident occurred just before the stage curtains were raised. There was a mighty crash on stage. Actress Candy Star, who was a little tipsy as a result of drinking to calm her opening night nerves, fell against part of the set causing it to collapse onto actor Peter Wanagetoff. Peter suffered physical injury and was taken to hospital.
Candy was registered with the Khan Performance Agency and worked on a variety of shows. When she was recruited by the Knight Theatre Company she was asked if she wanted to become an employee or self-employed. She said that she would be self-employed for tax reasons but signed a contract of employment which stipulated where she would work, the hours of rehearsal and performance, that the theatre company would provide all costumes and equipment and that she could not take any holidays until the run of shows had closed.
The final incident happened during the second act. The audience in rows C to E started to hear a cracking sound above them. Before they realised that they were in danger, a large section of the auditorium ceiling collapsed onto them.
The Abdul family – Paul Abdul, his pregnant wife Salma, their two children and friend Maria -were in row D. At the time of the ceiling collapsing Salma and Maria were making their way back to their seats with some refreshments. They saw the ceiling collapse onto Paul and the children and both immediately went into shock. Salmas’ shock was so severe that she was taken to hospital where she had a miscarriage. Both are still suffering sleepless nights. Paul and the children were also taken to hospital having suffered scratches and bruises in the incident.
In row F, just behind the Adbul family, was Danny Smith and in Row T was Sarah Hogg. Although neither Danny Smith nor Sarah Hogg suffered any physical injuries, both suffered severe shock as a result of seeing the incident.
The audience had left the theatre calmly, except for Angela Rush. Angela would not wait to leave her seating row and pushed Jen Mallah out of the way. This caused Jen to fall and in doing so, she cut her leg. When Angela reached the theatre exit door – an antique door worth £7000 – it would not open fully. A crowd had gathered behind her and they were unable to get out. Angela could hear bits of the ceiling still falling. She grabbed a nearby fire axe and smashed her way through the door enabling everyone to exit safely.
As a result of the above incidents, the remaining performances were cancelled.
Due to uncertainty in the length of the production – it was initially scheduled to run daily for two months but if it proved popular there was an option for it to run for up to four months – the shows musicians were contracted to perform on a show by show basis. Each of the twenty-five musicians was to receive £100 per performance. Due to the closure of the production each musician has lost between £6000 and £12000.
Apply the Law of Tort to the above to address all the legal issues raised including identifying the Claimant(s) and Defendant(s).
IMPORTANT; Guidance note.
When a situation arises, such as the above, many areas of law often apply. In this assignment you are to focus on the Law of Tort only.
Within the Law of Tort it is also possible for more than one area to apply. This assignment is to be answered in the context of Negligence, Trespass, Vicarious Liability and Tortious defences. (Others aspects of the module; nuisance, Rylands, Occupiers liability, Animals Act, Defamation, Statutory duty, will form the basis of the module examination and are not part of this assessment brief).
Undergraduate University Generic Marking Criteria
Tort is a Level 5 Module.

Level 4 (Certificate) Level 5 (Diploma) Level 6 (Degree)
90%-100%
Exceptional work with presentation of a very high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of a thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with very effective use of source material and accurate referencing. 90%-100%
Exceptional work with presentation of the highest standard. The work contains coherent arguments and ideas. There is a detailed understanding of subject matter and critical analysis of issues/problems. Points are made clearly and concisely, always substantiated by appropriate use of source material. There is evidence of a sound ability to critically interrelate theories with examples from practice where appropriate. 90%-100%
Exceptional work. Presentation is logical, error-free and, where appropriate, creative. There is an in-depth understanding of issues/problems and excellent critical/deep engagement with the material and concepts involved. Very skilful interpretation of data. Arguments, ideas and, where appropriate, solutions are presented coherently and fully underpinned by thorough research and reading.
80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of a thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with effective use of source material and accurate referencing. 80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key concepts and knowledge and evidence of critical analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively and based on strong research and reading. 80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key concepts and knowledge and clear evidence of critical analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively and based on strong research and reading.
70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with appropriate use of source material and accurate referencing. 70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. Evidence of strong knowledge and understanding together with some critical analysis and insight. Source material is used effectively to support arguments, ideas and solutions. 70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. Demonstrates an excellent knowledge base with a clear understanding of the issues and application to practice where appropriate. There is some effective critical and analytical application of relevant research and reading.
60%-69%
The work is well presented and coherently structured. There is evidence of a sound knowledge and understanding of the issues with theory linked to practice where appropriate. Most material used has been referenced/
acknowledged. 60%-69%
Very good presentation. Sound knowledge and understanding with an emerging ability to critically engage with and apply the concepts involved linking them to practice where appropriate. Good use of source material which supports most points clearly. Content is wholly relevant and is coherently structured. 60%-69%
The work is very good, logically structured and presented to a high standard. Demonstrates a strong knowledge base with a clear understanding of the issues and application to practice where appropriate. There is some critical and analytical application of relevant research.
50%-59%
Presentation is acceptable but with some errors. There is knowledge and understanding of issues under discussion and some evidence of the application of knowledge and ideas where appropriate. Some use of relevant source material. 50%-59%
Presentation is of a good standard but some shortcomings. Evidence of a sound knowledge base but limited critical and practical application of concepts and ideas. Content is largely relevant although points may not always be clear and structure may lack coherence. Contains some critical reflection and some use of source material to illustrate points. 50%-59%
The work is clearly presented and logically structured. It shows evidence of a sound understanding of the topic and addresses major issues. The work contains some discussion and interpretation of relevant perspectives although further development of the arguments presented would be beneficial. There are examples of critical reflection and evidence of application of theory to practice.
40%-49%
Presentation is acceptable but attention to structure and style is required. The content is relevant but largely descriptive. There is evidence of a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding but there is limited use of source material to support the arguments, proposals or solutions. Some links are made to practice where appropriate. 40%-49%
Adequate presentation. The work is descriptive and/or lacks critical analysis where required but is relevant with limited though sufficient evidence of knowledge and understanding. There is some evidence of reading although arguments/ proposals/solutions often lack coherence and may be unsubstantiated by relevant source material or partially flawed. Links to practice are made where appropriate. 40%-49%
Adequate presentation. The work displays basic knowledge and understanding of the topic but is largely descriptive. There is an attempt to bring together different ideas and concepts although this would have been strengthened by the inclusion of further key issues. The structure of the work requires attention to its coherence and logical development of content. The link between theory and practice, where appropriate, is somewhat tenuous and its development would enhance the work considerably.
30%-39% – Fail
The work is poorly structured and presented. Some material may be irrelevant. Content is based largely on taught elements with very little evidence of reading around the topic and little or no reference to practice where appropriate. 30%-39% – Fail
Poorly structured, incoherent and wholly descriptive work. Evidence of a weak knowledge base with some key aspects not addressed and use of irrelevant material. Flawed use of techniques. Limited evidence of appropriate reading and no evidence of critical thought. Little reference to practice where appropriate. 30%-39% – Fail
The work is poorly presented and contains numerous errors, inconsistencies and omissions with limited use of source material. The work displays a weak knowledge base and a lack of sufficient understanding of the topic. There is limited evidence of the application of theory to practice where appropriate. It contains many unsupported statements with limited attempts to bring issues together and lacks critical analysis and reflection.
20-29% – Fail
The work is very poorly structured and presented. Much material is irrelevant. Content is based almost entirely on taught elements with very little evidence of any purposeful reading around the topic. No effective reference to practice where appropriate. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter. 20-29% – Fail
Very poorly structured, incoherent and wholly descriptive work. Evidence of a very weak knowledge base with many key omissions and much material irrelevant. Use of inappropriate or incorrect techniques. Very little evidence of appropriate reading and no evidence of critical thought. No links to practice where appropriate. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter. 20-29% – Fail
The work is very poorly presented and contains numerous serious errors, inconsistencies and omissions with little use of source material. The work displays a very weak knowledge base and a lack of sufficient understanding of the topic. There is very little evidence of the application of theory to practice where appropriate. It contains many unsupported statements with very little attempt to bring issues together and there is a complete lack of critical analysis and reflection. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter.
0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant. No effective use of supporting material. No reference to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter. 0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant, incorrect or omitted. No evidence of critical thought. No effective use of supporting material. No links to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter. 0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant, incorrect, inconsistent or omitted. No evidence of critical analysis and reflection. No effective use of supporting material. No application of theory to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter.

Tort is a Level 5 Module.

Submit to Moodle by 23.00 (11pm) on Friday 27th November 2015
Assignment to be submitted electronically onto the Law of Tort section of the Moodle site. Please refer to Moodle site for a student guide on how to submit via Moodle. You can resubmit (overriding previous versions) as many times as you wish until the closing date and time. At that point the last submission/re-submission is the one marked.
Please attach the assignment cover / submission sheet to the front of your assignment before submitting the work. The cover sheet is available on Moodle. This will facilitate quality feedback for you.
The Law team strongly recommend that you do not leave submission of the assignment until the very last minute. You might experience technical problems with your computer. Last minute submission of your work is at your own risk. Any late submission will be subject to deduction of marks under the University regulations.
Word limit; 2000 words absolute maximum (no flexibility). It is important that you learn how to write precisely.
Word process in Times New Roman size 14 and double line space.
You should include a case list (in alphabetical order (additional list of statutes if applicable)), appropriate use of footnotes (not end notes) and a bibliography. These do not form part of the word count.
Harvard referencing should be used (see Law Resource page on Moodle in particular the Harvard System reference creator (or Google Neils Toolbox)) and all cases should be fully cited, including the page number for quotes (there is an expectation at this level that you read case law and quote from judgements and apply the legal principle(s) being quoted).
Appendices will not be considered.
Please note the course rules on plagiarism. Cut and paste techniques can amount to plagiarism. When your work is submitted electronically, it will be scanned by Turnitin plagiarism detection software automatically and prior to receipt by the tutors. This software will alert tutors to any plagiarism
Common errors to avoid at this level of study.
Do not forget the process! 1) Describe the law, 2) apply it (i.e. show the connection between the law and the conclusion(s) – show your reasoning) and 3) clearly state the conclusion(s).
Do not forget structure ! An assignment has an introduction, a logical main body and conclusion.
Do not forget presentation! At the very least run it through spell-check.
Do research ! Lecture notes and textbooks alone will not be enough. Use the electronic databases.

Law of Tort Assignment.
On Saturday evening a Knight Theatre Company production of Hello Dolly at the historical BradColl Theatre turned into a horror show after a series of serious incidents.
The first happened before the theatre doors had been opened.
Show producer Jeramiah Jones had arrived at the theatre to find the lights off and the auditorium shrouded in darkness. He climbed a spiral staircase looking for the light switch when he found an unmarked and unlocked door. Hidden behind it was the balcony, which had been used in the balcony scene in a production of Romeo and Juliet. He opened the door and plummeted 10ft (3m) onto the stage below. He is now a paraplegic.
The second incident occurred just before the stage curtains were raised. There was a mighty crash on stage. Actress Candy Star, who was a little tipsy as a result of drinking to calm her opening night nerves, fell against part of the set causing it to collapse onto actor Peter Wanagetoff. Peter suffered physical injury and was taken to hospital.
Candy was registered with the Khan Performance Agency and worked on a variety of shows. When she was recruited by the Knight Theatre Company she was asked if she wanted to become an employee or self-employed. She said that she would be self-employed for tax reasons but signed a contract of employment which stipulated where she would work, the hours of rehearsal and performance, that the theatre company would provide all costumes and equipment and that she could not take any holidays until the run of shows had closed.
The final incident happened during the second act. The audience in rows C to E started to hear a cracking sound above them. Before they realised that they were in danger, a large section of the auditorium ceiling collapsed onto them.
The Abdul family – Paul Abdul, his pregnant wife Salma, their two children and friend Maria -were in row D. At the time of the ceiling collapsing Salma and Maria were making their way back to their seats with some refreshments. They saw the ceiling collapse onto Paul and the children and both immediately went into shock. Salmas’ shock was so severe that she was taken to hospital where she had a miscarriage. Both are still suffering sleepless nights. Paul and the children were also taken to hospital having suffered scratches and bruises in the incident.
In row F, just behind the Adbul family, was Danny Smith and in Row T was Sarah Hogg. Although neither Danny Smith nor Sarah Hogg suffered any physical injuries, both suffered severe shock as a result of seeing the incident.
The audience had left the theatre calmly, except for Angela Rush. Angela would not wait to leave her seating row and pushed Jen Mallah out of the way. This caused Jen to fall and in doing so, she cut her leg. When Angela reached the theatre exit door – an antique door worth £7000 – it would not open fully. A crowd had gathered behind her and they were unable to get out. Angela could hear bits of the ceiling still falling. She grabbed a nearby fire axe and smashed her way through the door enabling everyone to exit safely.
As a result of the above incidents, the remaining performances were cancelled.
Due to uncertainty in the length of the production – it was initially scheduled to run daily for two months but if it proved popular there was an option for it to run for up to four months – the shows musicians were contracted to perform on a show by show basis. Each of the twenty-five musicians was to receive £100 per performance. Due to the closure of the production each musician has lost between £6000 and £12000.
Apply the Law of Tort to the above to address all the legal issues raised including identifying the Claimant(s) and Defendant(s).
IMPORTANT; Guidance note.
When a situation arises, such as the above, many areas of law often apply. In this assignment you are to focus on the Law of Tort only.
Within the Law of Tort it is also possible for more than one area to apply. This assignment is to be answered in the context of Negligence, Trespass, Vicarious Liability and Tortious defences. (Others aspects of the module; nuisance, Rylands, Occupiers liability, Animals Act, Defamation, Statutory duty, will form the basis of the module examination and are not part of this assessment brief).
Undergraduate University Generic Marking Criteria
Tort is a Level 5 Module.

Level 4 (Certificate) Level 5 (Diploma) Level 6 (Degree)
90%-100%
Exceptional work with presentation of a very high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of a thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with very effective use of source material and accurate referencing. 90%-100%
Exceptional work with presentation of the highest standard. The work contains coherent arguments and ideas. There is a detailed understanding of subject matter and critical analysis of issues/problems. Points are made clearly and concisely, always substantiated by appropriate use of source material. There is evidence of a sound ability to critically interrelate theories with examples from practice where appropriate. 90%-100%
Exceptional work. Presentation is logical, error-free and, where appropriate, creative. There is an in-depth understanding of issues/problems and excellent critical/deep engagement with the material and concepts involved. Very skilful interpretation of data. Arguments, ideas and, where appropriate, solutions are presented coherently and fully underpinned by thorough research and reading.
80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of a thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with effective use of source material and accurate referencing. 80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key concepts and knowledge and evidence of critical analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively and based on strong research and reading. 80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key concepts and knowledge and clear evidence of critical analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively and based on strong research and reading.
70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with appropriate use of source material and accurate referencing. 70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. Evidence of strong knowledge and understanding together with some critical analysis and insight. Source material is used effectively to support arguments, ideas and solutions. 70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. Demonstrates an excellent knowledge base with a clear understanding of the issues and application to practice where appropriate. There is some effective critical and analytical application of relevant research and reading.
60%-69%
The work is well presented and coherently structured. There is evidence of a sound knowledge and understanding of the issues with theory linked to practice where appropriate. Most material used has been referenced/
acknowledged. 60%-69%
Very good presentation. Sound knowledge and understanding with an emerging ability to critically engage with and apply the concepts involved linking them to practice where appropriate. Good use of source material which supports most points clearly. Content is wholly relevant and is coherently structured. 60%-69%
The work is very good, logically structured and presented to a high standard. Demonstrates a strong knowledge base with a clear understanding of the issues and application to practice where appropriate. There is some critical and analytical application of relevant research.
50%-59%
Presentation is acceptable but with some errors. There is knowledge and understanding of issues under discussion and some evidence of the application of knowledge and ideas where appropriate. Some use of relevant source material. 50%-59%
Presentation is of a good standard but some shortcomings. Evidence of a sound knowledge base but limited critical and practical application of concepts and ideas. Content is largely relevant although points may not always be clear and structure may lack coherence. Contains some critical reflection and some use of source material to illustrate points. 50%-59%
The work is clearly presented and logically structured. It shows evidence of a sound understanding of the topic and addresses major issues. The work contains some discussion and interpretation of relevant perspectives although further development of the arguments presented would be beneficial. There are examples of critical reflection and evidence of application of theory to practice.
40%-49%
Presentation is acceptable but attention to structure and style is required. The content is relevant but largely descriptive. There is evidence of a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding but there is limited use of source material to support the arguments, proposals or solutions. Some links are made to practice where appropriate. 40%-49%
Adequate presentation. The work is descriptive and/or lacks critical analysis where required but is relevant with limited though sufficient evidence of knowledge and understanding. There is some evidence of reading although arguments/ proposals/solutions often lack coherence and may be unsubstantiated by relevant source material or partially flawed. Links to practice are made where appropriate. 40%-49%
Adequate presentation. The work displays basic knowledge and understanding of the topic but is largely descriptive. There is an attempt to bring together different ideas and concepts although this would have been strengthened by the inclusion of further key issues. The structure of the work requires attention to its coherence and logical development of content. The link between theory and practice, where appropriate, is somewhat tenuous and its development would enhance the work considerably.
30%-39% – Fail
The work is poorly structured and presented. Some material may be irrelevant. Content is based largely on taught elements with very little evidence of reading around the topic and little or no reference to practice where appropriate. 30%-39% – Fail
Poorly structured, incoherent and wholly descriptive work. Evidence of a weak knowledge base with some key aspects not addressed and use of irrelevant material. Flawed use of techniques. Limited evidence of appropriate reading and no evidence of critical thought. Little reference to practice where appropriate. 30%-39% – Fail
The work is poorly presented and contains numerous errors, inconsistencies and omissions with limited use of source material. The work displays a weak knowledge base and a lack of sufficient understanding of the topic. There is limited evidence of the application of theory to practice where appropriate. It contains many unsupported statements with limited attempts to bring issues together and lacks critical analysis and reflection.
20-29% – Fail
The work is very poorly structured and presented. Much material is irrelevant. Content is based almost entirely on taught elements with very little evidence of any purposeful reading around the topic. No effective reference to practice where appropriate. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter. 20-29% – Fail
Very poorly structured, incoherent and wholly descriptive work. Evidence of a very weak knowledge base with many key omissions and much material irrelevant. Use of inappropriate or incorrect techniques. Very little evidence of appropriate reading and no evidence of critical thought. No links to practice where appropriate. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter. 20-29% – Fail
The work is very poorly presented and contains numerous serious errors, inconsistencies and omissions with little use of source material. The work displays a very weak knowledge base and a lack of sufficient understanding of the topic. There is very little evidence of the application of theory to practice where appropriate. It contains many unsupported statements with very little attempt to bring issues together and there is a complete lack of critical analysis and reflection. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter.
0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant. No effective use of supporting material. No reference to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter. 0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant, incorrect or omitted. No evidence of critical thought. No effective use of supporting material. No links to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter. 0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant, incorrect, inconsistent or omitted. No evidence of critical analysis and reflection. No effective use of supporting material. No application of theory to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter.

Tort is a Level 5 Module.

Submit to Moodle by 23.00 (11pm) on Friday 27th November 2015
Assignment to be submitted electronically onto the Law of Tort section of the Moodle site. Please refer to Moodle site for a student guide on how to submit via Moodle. You can resubmit (overriding previous versions) as many times as you wish until the closing date and time. At that point the last submission/re-submission is the one marked.
Please attach the assignment cover / submission sheet to the front of your assignment before submitting the work. The cover sheet is available on Moodle. This will facilitate quality feedback for you.
The Law team strongly recommend that you do not leave submission of the assignment until the very last minute. You might experience technical problems with your computer. Last minute submission of your work is at your own risk. Any late submission will be subject to deduction of marks under the University regulations.
Word limit; 2000 words absolute maximum (no flexibility). It is important that you learn how to write precisely.
Word process in Times New Roman size 14 and double line space.
You should include a case list (in alphabetical order (additional list of statutes if applicable)), appropriate use of footnotes (not end notes) and a bibliography. These do not form part of the word count.
Harvard referencing should be used (see Law Resource page on Moodle in particular the Harvard System reference creator (or Google Neils Toolbox)) and all cases should be fully cited, including the page number for quotes (there is an expectation at this level that you read case law and quote from judgements and apply the legal principle(s) being quoted).
Appendices will not be considered.
Please note the course rules on plagiarism. Cut and paste techniques can amount to plagiarism. When your work is submitted electronically, it will be scanned by Turnitin plagiarism detection software automatically and prior to receipt by the tutors. This software will alert tutors to any plagiarism
Common errors to avoid at this level of study.
Do not forget the process! 1) Describe the law, 2) apply it (i.e. show the connection between the law and the conclusion(s) – show your reasoning) and 3) clearly state the conclusion(s).
Do not forget structure ! An assignment has an introduction, a logical main body and conclusion.
Do not forget presentation! At the very least run it through spell-check.
Do research ! Lecture notes and textbooks alone will not be enough. Use the electronic databases.

Law of Tort Assignment.
On Saturday evening a Knight Theatre Company production of Hello Dolly at the historical BradColl Theatre turned into a horror show after a series of serious incidents.
The first happened before the theatre doors had been opened.
Show producer Jeramiah Jones had arrived at the theatre to find the lights off and the auditorium shrouded in darkness. He climbed a spiral staircase looking for the light switch when he found an unmarked and unlocked door. Hidden behind it was the balcony, which had been used in the balcony scene in a production of Romeo and Juliet. He opened the door and plummeted 10ft (3m) onto the stage below. He is now a paraplegic.
The second incident occurred just before the stage curtains were raised. There was a mighty crash on stage. Actress Candy Star, who was a little tipsy as a result of drinking to calm her opening night nerves, fell against part of the set causing it to collapse onto actor Peter Wanagetoff. Peter suffered physical injury and was taken to hospital.
Candy was registered with the Khan Performance Agency and worked on a variety of shows. When she was recruited by the Knight Theatre Company she was asked if she wanted to become an employee or self-employed. She said that she would be self-employed for tax reasons but signed a contract of employment which stipulated where she would work, the hours of rehearsal and performance, that the theatre company would provide all costumes and equipment and that she could not take any holidays until the run of shows had closed.
The final incident happened during the second act. The audience in rows C to E started to hear a cracking sound above them. Before they realised that they were in danger, a large section of the auditorium ceiling collapsed onto them.
The Abdul family – Paul Abdul, his pregnant wife Salma, their two children and friend Maria -were in row D. At the time of the ceiling collapsing Salma and Maria were making their way back to their seats with some refreshments. They saw the ceiling collapse onto Paul and the children and both immediately went into shock. Salmas’ shock was so severe that she was taken to hospital where she had a miscarriage. Both are still suffering sleepless nights. Paul and the children were also taken to hospital having suffered scratches and bruises in the incident.
In row F, just behind the Adbul family, was Danny Smith and in Row T was Sarah Hogg. Although neither Danny Smith nor Sarah Hogg suffered any physical injuries, both suffered severe shock as a result of seeing the incident.
The audience had left the theatre calmly, except for Angela Rush. Angela would not wait to leave her seating row and pushed Jen Mallah out of the way. This caused Jen to fall and in doing so, she cut her leg. When Angela reached the theatre exit door – an antique door worth £7000 – it would not open fully. A crowd had gathered behind her and they were unable to get out. Angela could hear bits of the ceiling still falling. She grabbed a nearby fire axe and smashed her way through the door enabling everyone to exit safely.
As a result of the above incidents, the remaining performances were cancelled.
Due to uncertainty in the length of the production – it was initially scheduled to run daily for two months but if it proved popular there was an option for it to run for up to four months – the shows musicians were contracted to perform on a show by show basis. Each of the twenty-five musicians was to receive £100 per performance. Due to the closure of the production each musician has lost between £6000 and £12000.
Apply the Law of Tort to the above to address all the legal issues raised including identifying the Claimant(s) and Defendant(s).
IMPORTANT; Guidance note.
When a situation arises, such as the above, many areas of law often apply. In this assignment you are to focus on the Law of Tort only.
Within the Law of Tort it is also possible for more than one area to apply. This assignment is to be answered in the context of Negligence, Trespass, Vicarious Liability and Tortious defences. (Others aspects of the module; nuisance, Rylands, Occupiers liability, Animals Act, Defamation, Statutory duty, will form the basis of the module examination and are not part of this assessment brief).
Undergraduate University Generic Marking Criteria
Tort is a Level 5 Module.

Level 4 (Certificate) Level 5 (Diploma) Level 6 (Degree)
90%-100%
Exceptional work with presentation of a very high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of a thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with very effective use of source material and accurate referencing. 90%-100%
Exceptional work with presentation of the highest standard. The work contains coherent arguments and ideas. There is a detailed understanding of subject matter and critical analysis of issues/problems. Points are made clearly and concisely, always substantiated by appropriate use of source material. There is evidence of a sound ability to critically interrelate theories with examples from practice where appropriate. 90%-100%
Exceptional work. Presentation is logical, error-free and, where appropriate, creative. There is an in-depth understanding of issues/problems and excellent critical/deep engagement with the material and concepts involved. Very skilful interpretation of data. Arguments, ideas and, where appropriate, solutions are presented coherently and fully underpinned by thorough research and reading.
80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of a thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with effective use of source material and accurate referencing. 80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key concepts and knowledge and evidence of critical analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively and based on strong research and reading. 80%-89%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key concepts and knowledge and clear evidence of critical analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively and based on strong research and reading.
70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of thorough knowledge and understanding. Arguments are supported by wide reading with appropriate use of source material and accurate referencing. 70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. Evidence of strong knowledge and understanding together with some critical analysis and insight. Source material is used effectively to support arguments, ideas and solutions. 70%-79%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard. Demonstrates an excellent knowledge base with a clear understanding of the issues and application to practice where appropriate. There is some effective critical and analytical application of relevant research and reading.
60%-69%
The work is well presented and coherently structured. There is evidence of a sound knowledge and understanding of the issues with theory linked to practice where appropriate. Most material used has been referenced/
acknowledged. 60%-69%
Very good presentation. Sound knowledge and understanding with an emerging ability to critically engage with and apply the concepts involved linking them to practice where appropriate. Good use of source material which supports most points clearly. Content is wholly relevant and is coherently structured. 60%-69%
The work is very good, logically structured and presented to a high standard. Demonstrates a strong knowledge base with a clear understanding of the issues and application to practice where appropriate. There is some critical and analytical application of relevant research.
50%-59%
Presentation is acceptable but with some errors. There is knowledge and understanding of issues under discussion and some evidence of the application of knowledge and ideas where appropriate. Some use of relevant source material. 50%-59%
Presentation is of a good standard but some shortcomings. Evidence of a sound knowledge base but limited critical and practical application of concepts and ideas. Content is largely relevant although points may not always be clear and structure may lack coherence. Contains some critical reflection and some use of source material to illustrate points. 50%-59%
The work is clearly presented and logically structured. It shows evidence of a sound understanding of the topic and addresses major issues. The work contains some discussion and interpretation of relevant perspectives although further development of the arguments presented would be beneficial. There are examples of critical reflection and evidence of application of theory to practice.
40%-49%
Presentation is acceptable but attention to structure and style is required. The content is relevant but largely descriptive. There is evidence of a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding but there is limited use of source material to support the arguments, proposals or solutions. Some links are made to practice where appropriate. 40%-49%
Adequate presentation. The work is descriptive and/or lacks critical analysis where required but is relevant with limited though sufficient evidence of knowledge and understanding. There is some evidence of reading although arguments/ proposals/solutions often lack coherence and may be unsubstantiated by relevant source material or partially flawed. Links to practice are made where appropriate. 40%-49%
Adequate presentation. The work displays basic knowledge and understanding of the topic but is largely descriptive. There is an attempt to bring together different ideas and concepts although this would have been strengthened by the inclusion of further key issues. The structure of the work requires attention to its coherence and logical development of content. The link between theory and practice, where appropriate, is somewhat tenuous and its development would enhance the work considerably.
30%-39% – Fail
The work is poorly structured and presented. Some material may be irrelevant. Content is based largely on taught elements with very little evidence of reading around the topic and little or no reference to practice where appropriate. 30%-39% – Fail
Poorly structured, incoherent and wholly descriptive work. Evidence of a weak knowledge base with some key aspects not addressed and use of irrelevant material. Flawed use of techniques. Limited evidence of appropriate reading and no evidence of critical thought. Little reference to practice where appropriate. 30%-39% – Fail
The work is poorly presented and contains numerous errors, inconsistencies and omissions with limited use of source material. The work displays a weak knowledge base and a lack of sufficient understanding of the topic. There is limited evidence of the application of theory to practice where appropriate. It contains many unsupported statements with limited attempts to bring issues together and lacks critical analysis and reflection.
20-29% – Fail
The work is very poorly structured and presented. Much material is irrelevant. Content is based almost entirely on taught elements with very little evidence of any purposeful reading around the topic. No effective reference to practice where appropriate. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter. 20-29% – Fail
Very poorly structured, incoherent and wholly descriptive work. Evidence of a very weak knowledge base with many key omissions and much material irrelevant. Use of inappropriate or incorrect techniques. Very little evidence of appropriate reading and no evidence of critical thought. No links to practice where appropriate. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter. 20-29% – Fail
The work is very poorly presented and contains numerous serious errors, inconsistencies and omissions with little use of source material. The work displays a very weak knowledge base and a lack of sufficient understanding of the topic. There is very little evidence of the application of theory to practice where appropriate. It contains many unsupported statements with very little attempt to bring issues together and there is a complete lack of critical analysis and reflection. To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and with the subject matter.
0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant. No effective use of supporting material. No reference to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter. 0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant, incorrect or omitted. No evidence of critical thought. No effective use of supporting material. No links to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter. 0-19 % – Fail
The work is extremely poorly structured and presented. It demonstrates no real knowledge or understanding of key concepts and principles. Much material is irrelevant, incorrect, inconsistent or omitted. No evidence of critical analysis and reflection. No effective use of supporting material. No application of theory to practice where appropriate. Not a genuine attempt to engage with the assessment requirements and/or subject matter.

Tort is a Level 5 Module.

Submit to Moodle by 23.00 (11pm) on Friday 27th November 2015
Assignment to be submitted electronically onto the Law of Tort section of the Moodle site. Please refer to Moodle site for a student guide on how to submit via Moodle. You can resubmit (overriding previous versions) as many times as you wish until the closing date and time. At that point the last submission/re-submission is the one marked.
Please attach the assignment cover / submission sheet to the front of your assignment before submitting the work. The cover sheet is available on Moodle. This will facilitate quality feedback for you.
The Law team strongly recommend that you do not leave submission of the assignment until the very last minute. You might experience technical problems with your computer. Last minute submission of your work is at your own risk. Any late submission will be subject to deduction of marks under the University regulations.
Word limit; 2000 words absolute maximum (no flexibility). It is important that you learn how to write precisely.
Word process in Times New Roman size 14 and double line space.
You should include a case list (in alphabetical order (additional list of statutes if applicable)), appropriate use of footnotes (not end notes) and a bibliography. These do not form part of the word count.
Harvard referencing should be used (see Law Resource page on Moodle in particular the Harvard System reference creator (or Google Neils Toolbox)) and all cases should be fully cited, including the page number for quotes (there is an expectation at this level that you read case law and quote from judgements and apply the legal principle(s) being quoted).
Appendices will not be considered.
Please note the course rules on plagiarism. Cut and paste techniques can amount to plagiarism. When your work is submitted electronically, it will be scanned by Turnitin plagiarism detection software automatically and prior to receipt by the tutors. This software will alert tutors to any plagiarism
Common errors to avoid at this level of study.
Do not forget the process! 1) Describe the law, 2) apply it (i.e. show the connection between the law and the conclusion(s) – show your reasoning) and 3) clearly state the conclusion(s).
Do not forget structure ! An assignment has an introduction, a logical main body and conclusion.
Do not forget presentation! At the very least run it through spell-check.
Do research ! Lecture notes and textbooks alone will not be enough. Use the electronic databases.