Smoldon v Whitworth & Nolan [1997 case. Please help with these questions:

1.Which decision will be final for the plaintiff? The decision of the first judge or the decision of the Court of Appeal judge? Briefly explain why.

2.Explain the reason for which the decision of the Court of Appeal judge was opposite to the decision of the first judge. What grounds did the Court of Appeal judge used to justify his decision?

3.Why do you think that the plaintiff had no valid claim of tort against the player from the opposing team (first defendant)? Explain your answer by referring to the elements of tort of negligence.

4.In your opinion, do you think that the Court of Appeal judge was correct in his decision to dismiss the case? Do you think that the "standard of care" has been met in the case described above on the part of the referee?

5.Would the outcome of this case be different if the player was 25 years old?