Tort Law Overview

A legal defense where the injured party knowingly and willingly accepted the risk of harm, negating liability.

A legal defense where the injured party's own negligence contributed to their harm, reducing the defendant's liability.

An unlawful visitor who enters another's property without permission. They are not owed the same level of care as invitees or licensees.

A civil wrong that involves continuous and unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of another's land.

A private nuisance requires ongoing interference with the land, not a single isolated incident.

In the case of Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, the court determined that activities necessary for the normal operation of a building are not necessarily considered a nuisance, even if they cause annoyance.

A preliminary issue in determining a private nuisance claim is whether the activity in question is inherently an annoyance, but not necessarily a legally actionable nuisance.

The 'ordinary use' of a building refers to activities essential for its normal operation, which may not necessarily be considered a nuisance.

An action taken by a private individual to stop a nuisance that causes them specific harm beyond that experienced by the general public.

An action brought by a local authority under the Local Government Act 1972 to stop a nuisance within their jurisdiction.

A nuisance claim brought by an Attorney General on behalf of a private citizen when broader public interest is at stake.

A legal defense arguing that the alleged nuisance is permitted by law, protecting the defendant from liability.

A legal principle establishing liability when someone brings something onto their land that, if it escapes, can cause harm to others.

Financial compensation awarded to a person who has suffered harm due to a nuisance.

A court order that stops a person from performing a specific action that contributes to the nuisance.

Nuisances that are particularly harmful to the environment, public health, or both.

A civil wrong that arises from a breach of a duty primarily fixed by law, generally towards persons.

Compensation for a wrong that has been done.

An intentional act that threatens violence or produces a reasonable expectation of immediate unlawful force.

The direct and intentional application of force to another person without consent.

The oldest recognized tort, protecting the lawful possession of land.

Direct interference with another person's possessions, which can be actionable without proof of damage.

A type of tort where liability is imposed even without proof of intent or negligence.

The act must have been deliberate.

A type of tort where liability arises from a failure to exercise reasonable care.

Aims to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and achieving justice by ensuring fairness.

Aims to discourage wrongful acts by making wrongdoers face consequences.

Aims to provide compensation to those who have suffered harm.

The person who brings a claim in civil court.

The person who is accused of wrongdoing in a civil court.

Where one person is held liable for the actions of another.

In negligence, the type of damage caused must be foreseeable. For example, if you negligently leave a ladder lying around, it is foreseeable that someone might trip over it and hurt themselves. However, if you negligently leave a ladder around and someone uses it to climb a tree and falls, that kind of damage is not foreseeable.

The "Evaluate Rule" in negligence law means considering the specific circumstances which led to the establishment of a rule and whether those circumstances are relevant to the current case. It is a way to determine whether a rule applied in a previous case is relevant to a new case.

To succeed in a negligence claim, you must prove three things: 1. The defendant owed you a duty of care. 2. The defendant breached that duty of care. 3. The defendant's breach caused your damage.

A duty of care is a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. This obligation arises when there is a sufficiently close relationship between the defendant and the claimant.

A breach of duty of care occurs when a defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in their position. This means they didn't act with reasonable care and caution.

The damage caused by the defendant's negligence must be a direct and foreseeable consequence of their actions. This is to prevent liability for remote or unexpected consequences.

The "Donoghue v Stevenson" case established a general duty of care in negligence law, stating that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers of their products, even if there is no contractual relationship between them.

The "Donoghue v Stevenson" principle has been expanded to cover situations beyond the original case, such as the duty of care owed by public authorities and landowners.

Someone claiming private nuisance must demonstrate they have a legitimate connection to the land affected by the nuisance.

An unreasonable use of land that doesn't fit within the accepted norms of the area.

The impact of the nuisance must have been foreseeable, meaning it was reasonably likely to happen.

A private nuisance requires a continuous and indirect interference with the enjoyment of land.

The claimant needs to demonstrate some actual harm, inconvenience, or damage caused by the nuisance.

An act of God, like a natural disaster, can be a valid defense against claims of private nuisance.

A legal permission granted by an authority for an action that might otherwise cause a nuisance.

A court order prohibiting someone from continuing an activity that creates a nuisance.

A public nuisance significantly affects the comfort, health, or convenience of a substantial group of people.

A public nuisance requires more than one person to be affected. An individual isn't enough.

For a public nuisance claim, the claimant must prove that they suffered unique or particularly severe harm.

The defendant is responsible for a public nuisance if they knew or should have known about the risk it posed.

An example of a potential disturbance that courts may consider a public nuisance.

The individual must be connected to the land affected by the nuisance, like an owner or leaseholder.

The legal right for someone to sue another person or entity.

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) governs compensation for injuries sustained on another person's property in the UK. Claimants can only receive compensation if their harm results from the fault of the occupier.

A visitor is someone who enters a premise with permission. This can be either lawful, like a customer in a shop, or unlawful, like a trespasser.

Common law defines the standard of care owed to visitors based on their relationship with the occupier. This standard can vary depending on whether they're an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.

In the case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003), the claimant dived into a lake despite warning signs and became paralyzed. The court ruled that the occupier was not liable, as the claimant's actions were unreasonable.

Occupiers are responsible for the negligence of independent contractors they employ, even if the contractors are technically separate entities. This requires the occupier to exercise reasonable care in selecting and supervising the contractor. The occupier can still be held liable if the contractor's negligence causes harm to a visitor.

The Haseldine v Daw (1941) case involved a claimant getting injured in an elevator maintained by a contractor. The court ruled that the occupier was still liable because they had a duty to ensure the contractor's competence and supervision.

The Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945) case involved a child slipping on icy church steps. The court ruled that the occupier was liable for the negligence of the person responsible for cleaning the steps, even though it was not the occupier themselves. This exemplifies the responsibility of occupiers to control the actions of those responsible for the premises.

Special considerations are often required for children as visitors to a property. Due to their lack of experience and judgment, occupiers have a higher responsibility to protect them from potential hazards.

The Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1935) case involved a child falling into an unhidden hole on a building site. The court ruled that the occupier was liable because the hazard was not obvious to a child, even though it was visible to an adult.

An 'occupier' is someone who has a sufficient degree of control over the property, whether it's their own home, a workplace, or a public space.

The 'reasonable person' test is a legal standard used to determine whether an occupier has acted with reasonable care in the circumstances. This test considers what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation.

A 'breach of duty' occurs when an occupier fails to meet the required standard of care, creating a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to a visitor. The occupier can be liable for injuries resulting from this breach.

A 'causation' is the link between the occupier's breach of duty and the visitor's injury. The breach must be a direct cause of the injury, meaning the injury would not have occurred without the breach.

The 'remoteness of damage' refers to the idea that an occupier is only liable for damages that are a foreseeable consequence of their breach of duty. Unforeseeable consequences are not generally the occupier's responsibility.