8/10/2019 Tutorial 8.docx

1/2

Tutorial 8(week of Nov 11)- Duty of Care (cont'd)

For assessmentas graded tutorial assignment.Submit on Moodle by 5pm Monday Nov 10see Tutorial8submission instructions posted on the Tutorial Sem 1 section of the course website. Some important points - thereis a 600 word limit; write your student ID number, not your name, on the first page of the paper; also write your tutors initials,and your tutorial group number; be sure to indicate the computer word count on the first page of the paper; the assignmentwill be weighted either 10% or 0% depending on the grade of your end of semester tort test. Note that you must do your ownwork, not in collaboration with others (papers will be graded by your own tutor).

Consequence of late submission: Timely submissionwill be strictly enforced.You will be marked down accordingto the lateness of your submission as follows: Lateness of between 124 hours = reduction of one part grade (egB to B-, B- to C+ etc); lateness of between 24- 48 hours = reduction of two part grades, lateness of between 48- 72hours = reduction of three part grades, and lateness of more than 72 hours = zero result. Thus, by way of example,lateness of 2 hours = reduction of one part grade; lateness of 28 hours = reduction of two part grades, etc.

Consequence of word limit overrun: Word limit will be strictly enforced. If you use footnotes (there should be noneed to do so), these must be included in the word count. You will be marked down by one part grade asfollows:Overrun of 5-20 words = reduction of one part-grade; overrun of 20-35 words = two part-grades; overrun of35-50 words = reduction of three part-grades and so on. Thus, a word overrun of 15 words = reduction by one partgrade; overrun of 45 words = reduction of three part grades, etc.

During the tutorial you can consider how your analysis compares to that reached in the tutorial discussion. In this way youcan know how close or how far off track your analysis was, bearing in mind that in legal analysis there is always scope for

some variation in what can constitute an excellent analysis. The purpose is to provide you with a chance to develop yourproblem-solving, analytical and writing skills in an assessment carrying little or no weight. As the answers will be taken up inthe tutorial in the week of submission, you will have the benefit of real-time discussion and feedback when the work is freshin your minds. The tutorial discussion itself can influence the "model analysis" to be used by tutors in reading and gradingyour papers. Therefore, you should take the opportunity in tutorial to argue the points you think are relevant. Sometimes,arguments raised in students' answers and in students' input in tutorial discussion, although not anticipated by the designerof the question, are valid and will be credited.

The so-called "model" analysis will be posted on the course website after the completion of tutorial 8 by all groups. I hopeyou find the exercise of value. For grading purposes, the course grade descriptors apply to this assessment (seeAssessment - Grade descriptors).

Tutorial learning outcomes: after preparing and submitting this exercise and attending and participating in the tutorial

discussion, students should be able to

1. better recognize the relevance of tort law in events as they happen in the community and are reported in the media

2. identify and more skilfully discuss negligence liability issues arising from real-life events, as well as any relevant policyissues

3. write cogent legal analysis within the framework of negligence law arising from real life events detrimentally affectingmembers of the community

4. critically assess their own work in light of the tutorial discussion and analysis.

Passer-by killed by chair thrown from 10-storey building; psychiatric patient held

Tuesday, 10 June, 2014, 10:55am NewsHong Kong

Clifford Lo, Jessie Lau and Shirley Zhao

Police arrest mentally-ill mainlander found drinking on top of building

A 22-year-old psychiatric patient has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a passer-by was killed by a chair thought tohave been thrown from the roof of a 10-storey building in Mong Kok yesterday.

The suspect is a former waiter who had been receiving treatment for mental illness for about six months, a police sourcesaid.

"Doctors are assessing his mental state in hospital," the source said. "We will look into the results of his medical examinationas part of our investigation."

Salesman Wong Wai-tik, 29, died after being hit by the chair as he walked with two colleagues on Sai Yeung Choi StreetSouth at about 1 am yesterday. He was declared dead at Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei at 1.19am.

8/10/2019 Tutorial 8.docx

2/2

The 22-year-old waiter, who arrived from the mainland in 2009, was found drinking beer alone on the roof of the building atNo 59 in the same street where he lived alone in a top-floor flat, police said.

He was being held in the custodial ward of Kwong Wah Hospital last night. He had not been charged.

A spokesman for Kwai Chung psychiatric hospital said the man had been discharged from the hospital earlier this year. Hehad been visited regularly at home by a psychiatric nurse. He had a consultation on Friday and his next appointment hadbeen scheduled for July 4.

Wong and two colleagues - a man and woman - were walking on the pavement opposite No 59 after a meal when he wasstruck.

Video footage shows him lying unconscious in a pool of blood next to the broken chair. "Don't sleep. Don't sleep, Ah Tik," hisdistressed female colleague can be heard shouting.

Kenneth Ng Chun-kit, 46, a visitor to Mong Kok, said there was no way people could protect themselves in the streets. "It'sjust fate and luck," he said.

On the roof where the waiter was arrested, police found a chair similar to the one that landed on Wong along with severalempty beer cans.

"Initially, he admitted he had thrown a chair down to the street earlier," Superintendent Jackson Mak Pui-yuen, assistantMong Kok district commander for crime, said.

Mak said police would check images from a HK$1.7 million "Eye in the Sky" surveillance system to see whether it hadcaptured the incident.

The system was set up in Sai Yeung Choi Street South after three incidents in which acid was thrown down into the street inthe pedestrian precinct from December 2008 to June 2009, injuring 101 people.

Police offered three rewards totalling HK$900,000 for help in solving those attacks, but no arrests have been made.

Dr Wong Yee-him, specialist in psychiatry for the Jockey Club Early Psychosis Project, said the man's behaviour appearedto show symptoms similar to schizophrenia and that he might have suffered from a relapse by not taking medicine asrequired between sessions with his psychiatrist.

He speculated that the man might have thrown the chair because he had heard voices telling him to do so.

Wong said the Hospital Authority had been providing services such as regular visits to psychiatric patients but could notcover all patients because of a lack of nurses.

Chinese University psychiatry professor Lee Sing said Hong Kong was short of psychiatric doctors, psychiatric nurses,clinical psychologists and social workers.

He said a psychiatrist was required to see at least 30 patients in a three-hour morning session in a public hospital.

With only six to seven minutes available, he said it was possible a doctor might overlook or underestimate a patient's illness.

"In fact, they have apparently done a good job, otherwise more such tragedies might occur," he said.

Wongs family is considering a negligence actionagainst the Hospital Authority (HA) for its failure to carefully evaluate themental condition of the man who threw the chair and to take appropriate measures in his treatment and supervision (you canassume that the HA is the legal entity that bears legal responsibility for wrongs committed by HA hospitals). What do yousee as the major tort liability issues? Advise the Wong family on what must be proved for a successful negligence actionagainst the HA and the difficulties that might be encountered. Provide a full analysis with reference to all of the relevantfacts, and with reference to relevant case authority. Be sure to consider any policy issues that might be relevant to the court.

[Note: For the purposes of this exercise, you must confine the analysis to the facts of this narrative. Do not add facts thatmight have been reported in subsequent news reports or in other newspapers.

As with previous tutorials, the Tutorial 8 problem is a news report. It is a journalists report of what happened, and naturallymay omit facts that we would like to have. Nonetheless, there is sufficient information here on which to base a legal analysis

and form a legal opinion. If there are facts missing that you think are relevant to your analysis, you can mention that andindicate why it is relevant and how it would influence the outcome of the case.

For your information: the family has the same rights to sue as the victim would have had, had he not died (we studythe Fatal Accidents Ordinance in the second semester).].