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

For assessment as graded tutorial assignment. Submit on Moodle by 5pm Monday Nov 10 see Tutorial
8 submission instructions posted on the Tutorial Sem 1 section of the course website. Some important points - there
is 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 assignment
will be weighted either 10% or 0% depending on the grade of your end of semester tort test. Note that you must do your own
work, not in collaboration with others (papers will be graded by your own tutor).
Consequence of late submission: Timely submission will be strictly enforced. You will be marked down according
to the lateness of your submission as follows: Lateness of between 1 24 hours = reduction of one part grade (eg
B to B-, B- to C+ etc); lateness of between 24- 48 hours = reduction of two part grades, lateness of between 48- 72
hours = 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 no
need to do so), these must be included in the word count. You will be marked down by one part grade as
follows:Overrun of 5-20 words = reduction of one part-grade; overrun of 20-35 words = two part-grades; overrun of
35-50 words = reduction of three part-grades and so on. Thus, a word overrun of 15 words = reduction by one part
grade; 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 you
can 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 your
problem-solving, analytical and writing skills in an assessment carrying little or no weight. As the answers will be taken up in
the tutorial in the week of submission, you will have the benefit of real-time discussion and feedback when the work is fresh
in your minds. The tutorial discussion itself can influence the "model analysis" to be used by tutors in reading and grading
your 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 designer
of 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 hope
you find the exercise of value. For grading purposes, the course grade descriptors apply to this assessment (see
Assessment - 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 policy
issues
3. write cogent legal analysis within the framework of negligence law arising from real life events detrimentally affecting
members 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 to
have 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 source
said.
"Doctors are assessing his mental state in hospital," the source said. "We will look into the results of his medical examination
as 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 Street
South at about 1 am yesterday. He was declared dead at Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei at 1.19am.

The 22-year-old waiter, who arrived from the mainland in 2009, was found drinking beer alone on the roof of the building at
No 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. He
had been visited regularly at home by a psychiatric nurse. He had a consultation on Friday and his next appointment had
been 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 was
struck.
Video footage shows him lying unconscious in a pool of blood next to the broken chair. "Don't sleep. Don't sleep, Ah Tik," his
distressed 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's
just 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 several
empty beer cans.
"Initially, he admitted he had thrown a chair down to the street earlier," Superintendent Jackson Mak Pui-yuen, assistant
Mong 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 had
captured 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 in
the 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 appeared
to show symptoms similar to schizophrenia and that he might have suffered from a relapse by not taking medicine as
required 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 not
cover 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 action against the Hospital Authority (HA) for its failure to carefully evaluate the
mental condition of the man who threw the chair and to take appropriate measures in his treatment and supervision (you can
assume that the HA is the legal entity that bears legal responsibility for wrongs committed by HA hospitals). What do you
see as the major tort liability issues? Advise the Wong family on what must be proved for a successful negligence action
against the HA and the difficulties that might be encountered. Provide a full analysis with reference to all of the relevant
facts, 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 that
might 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 naturally
may 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 and
indicate 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 study
the Fatal Accidents Ordinance in the second semester).].