D1 –
In this task, I am going to apply all of the three previous scenarios to the law of tort and how each
scenario could’ve prevented themselves law of tort or being sued. To recap, the three different
scenarios are the Land’s End Animal Park scenario, the Hinds Head scenario and the Canvey Island
Angling club scenario. All three scenarios apply to different parts of the tort of law; Lands End Animal
Park applies to Negligence, The Hinds Head Pub scenario applies to Nuisance and the Canvey Island
Angling club scenario applies to Occupier’s and Vicarious Liability.
In the Lands End Animal Park scenario, the children were taken on a school trip by teacher Mr Teddy
King in which whilst the children were touring around the monkey section, two pupils Adil and Jack
wandered off unnoticed to a pen where young monkeys were being fed by a warden. The children
entered the pen in which startled the monkeys and they went to attack the pupils and Adil was
attacked, whereas Jack managed to escape. Adil’s parents believe that the warden was negligent to
leave the cage door open and are considering suing him for injuries suffered. Applying this scenario
to negligence, it could be argued that it is right to sue the warden because he wasn’t monitoring the
children and stopping them from going into the pen as he should’ve kept the cage door shut. A case
that supports this case is the Scott v Zoo New England case, where a gorilla climbed out of his cage,
attacked a two year old girl and her babysitter which terrorised the neighbourhood before being
subdued, causing the girl to be awarded $175,000. There are two ways in which Lands End Animal
Park could’ve been prevented from negligence. One way was that the warden should’ve protected
the cage door and been present to tell the children not to enter the pen. The other way in which the
scenario wouldn’t have happened if Mr Teddy King was monitoring the children or even have more
staff present on the trip so all the children can be supervised.
Onto the Hinds Head Pub scenario, a party was going on in the pub and the owner of the pub
Federica was smoking a cigarette in the garden of the pub in which she threw her match on the floor
that was still lit, causing the match to ignite a rocket that flew over to her neighbour Alex’s garden
which caused damage to his lawn and killing his fish in his pond as the rocket landed in the pond.
Applying the scenario to nuisance, it is right for Alex the neighbour to sue Federica for nuisance
because it is damage to his land, therefore it is interference with the use or enjoyment of land. A
previous case that can support this scenario is the Ryland v Fletcher case. This case was where the
defendants employed contractors to construct a reservoir on their land in which the contractors
were digging and found mines that were disused but they weren’t sealed properly. The contractors
then filled the reservoir with water which caused the water to flood the plaintiff’s mines on the
adjoining property, causing damage to the mines. Another case that applies to the Hinds Head
scenario is the Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] case, where the defendants were sued for nuisance
with the use of enjoyment of land. In terms of the Hinds Head scenario, Federica could’ve prevented
herself from nuisance by ensuring that her match wasn’t lit and if she noticed it was lit, then she
should’ve put it out if she wasn’t using it any more.
In the Canvey Island Angling Club scenario, there were multiple incidents that happened such as Mrs
Dawood spraining her foot on a wooden bridge that had loose planks, their son’s watch being
damaged after a scuffle with one of the gatekeepers and their daughter falling into a squirrel snares,
causing herself to have an injury. Fred Goodman should be sued for occupier’s liability for Mrs
Dawood’s accident because he didn’t warn their visitors that the bridge is under refurbishment and
undergoing repairs. A case that backs up the children incident of Fred Goodman not being sued is
the Glasgow v Taylor [1922] case, where a child ate berries from a shrub in a public park in which the
child died due to the berries being poisonous. Glasgow Corporation was liable as they had no
In this task, I am going to apply all of the three previous scenarios to the law of tort and how each
scenario could’ve prevented themselves law of tort or being sued. To recap, the three different
scenarios are the Land’s End Animal Park scenario, the Hinds Head scenario and the Canvey Island
Angling club scenario. All three scenarios apply to different parts of the tort of law; Lands End Animal
Park applies to Negligence, The Hinds Head Pub scenario applies to Nuisance and the Canvey Island
Angling club scenario applies to Occupier’s and Vicarious Liability.
In the Lands End Animal Park scenario, the children were taken on a school trip by teacher Mr Teddy
King in which whilst the children were touring around the monkey section, two pupils Adil and Jack
wandered off unnoticed to a pen where young monkeys were being fed by a warden. The children
entered the pen in which startled the monkeys and they went to attack the pupils and Adil was
attacked, whereas Jack managed to escape. Adil’s parents believe that the warden was negligent to
leave the cage door open and are considering suing him for injuries suffered. Applying this scenario
to negligence, it could be argued that it is right to sue the warden because he wasn’t monitoring the
children and stopping them from going into the pen as he should’ve kept the cage door shut. A case
that supports this case is the Scott v Zoo New England case, where a gorilla climbed out of his cage,
attacked a two year old girl and her babysitter which terrorised the neighbourhood before being
subdued, causing the girl to be awarded $175,000. There are two ways in which Lands End Animal
Park could’ve been prevented from negligence. One way was that the warden should’ve protected
the cage door and been present to tell the children not to enter the pen. The other way in which the
scenario wouldn’t have happened if Mr Teddy King was monitoring the children or even have more
staff present on the trip so all the children can be supervised.
Onto the Hinds Head Pub scenario, a party was going on in the pub and the owner of the pub
Federica was smoking a cigarette in the garden of the pub in which she threw her match on the floor
that was still lit, causing the match to ignite a rocket that flew over to her neighbour Alex’s garden
which caused damage to his lawn and killing his fish in his pond as the rocket landed in the pond.
Applying the scenario to nuisance, it is right for Alex the neighbour to sue Federica for nuisance
because it is damage to his land, therefore it is interference with the use or enjoyment of land. A
previous case that can support this scenario is the Ryland v Fletcher case. This case was where the
defendants employed contractors to construct a reservoir on their land in which the contractors
were digging and found mines that were disused but they weren’t sealed properly. The contractors
then filled the reservoir with water which caused the water to flood the plaintiff’s mines on the
adjoining property, causing damage to the mines. Another case that applies to the Hinds Head
scenario is the Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] case, where the defendants were sued for nuisance
with the use of enjoyment of land. In terms of the Hinds Head scenario, Federica could’ve prevented
herself from nuisance by ensuring that her match wasn’t lit and if she noticed it was lit, then she
should’ve put it out if she wasn’t using it any more.
In the Canvey Island Angling Club scenario, there were multiple incidents that happened such as Mrs
Dawood spraining her foot on a wooden bridge that had loose planks, their son’s watch being
damaged after a scuffle with one of the gatekeepers and their daughter falling into a squirrel snares,
causing herself to have an injury. Fred Goodman should be sued for occupier’s liability for Mrs
Dawood’s accident because he didn’t warn their visitors that the bridge is under refurbishment and
undergoing repairs. A case that backs up the children incident of Fred Goodman not being sued is
the Glasgow v Taylor [1922] case, where a child ate berries from a shrub in a public park in which the
child died due to the berries being poisonous. Glasgow Corporation was liable as they had no
