Tort Law PDF

Tort : · Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law. Such duty is generally...

Tort : · Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law. Such duty is generally towards persons , - Tort = a Wrong , french Tort is usually about compensation/money accepting wrong - , was done - Tort covers : - Traffic accidents - negligence - Fights-assault/battery - Cops exceeding lawful authority - Pollution- nuisanc Objectives ofFort : Glanville Williams (1951) - -Appeasement : prevents people from taking the law into their own hands Justice : what is fair doing - - Deterrence Compensation - Public issues : policy - Floodgates of litigation - - Compensation culture : accidents happen , not everything needs compensation Compensation Act 2006 - - Mental element : ~ Intention : act must've been deliberate Negligence - - Strict liability : no mental element Requirement of damage/loss : 'actionable per se proof of damage - , · Parties to an action : - Claimant - Defendant - Deceased estate - Vicarious liability Trespass : Intentional Stanley V Dowell confirmed requirement to : prov fault · Direct interference (battery is trespass to the person ( - Actionable per se ~ Protects fundamental rights : possession of land , enjoyment of goods bodily integrity , Trespass to land : · Oldest Tort 800 years , - Protects lawful possession of land Right to possession : Kelson v Imperial Tobacco · - Defenses : Statutory authority · Necessity - Assault : an intentional act that threatens violence or produces a masonable expectation of immediate unlawful ford - Tuberville Savage (1669): defendant blinded claimant by poking sword in eye , was to protect himself from being attacked Battery : The direct & intentional application of force to another person without consent - cannot draw the line between different kinds Fagan Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969) : touching which started off lawful can - become battery Fagon ranover polices foot, accident Wouldn't more the car, battery charged with assault ·. became , · Mental state required : Collins v Wilcock (1984) : every persons body - is inviolent Defenses to assault & battery : - Consent : Medical treatment : Chatterton Gerson (1981) to reduce pain caused pain Surgery more - v - , courts sided with dr , patient was given enough into - Sport Ru Billinghurst (19)8) consenting : - to force that could be reasonably expected Sado-Machism : Rv Brown (1993) sexual activity film Consenting adults engaging in · - , police consent not applicable got to , was - Self defense : -Cockcroft u Smith (1705) : Court claimant attempted to poke the defendant in the eye , he bit off his finger not self-defence , - Ashley Chief constable of Sussex Police (2008): Raid on Mr ashley home shot , him , had wrong address Necessity - : - Medical treatment or is unconscious it could be massity · Leigh u Gladstone (1909) : suffragettes on hunger strike in prison government forc , fed them argued it , was battery False imprisonment : · Complete restriction of ones freedom of movement without lawful excuse - Bird Jones (1845) : the principle that it has to be complete restriction Roped off bridge & charges to claimant argues false imprisonment NOPE Could re walked around - a cross , , , Wilkinson v Downtown (1897) : defendant goes to pub tells claimant his wife had on accident as a prank he , got sick from worry court held it caused , psychological damage Ov A (2015) : Domestic abuse case , wife didn't want anything public to prevent son Psychological damage , - 3 elements : Conduct mental , , Consequence Interests at stake : 2 · Right of occupiers to do what they wish with their own property · Need to protect people entering property from harm , building is safe Common Law Origins : Occupiers liability act 1957 : governs liability to lawful visitors similar to - negligence , · Occupiers liability act 1984 : governs liability to non-lawful visitors /trespassers , Not clear liability Occupancy& activity duties : Ferguson ~ Welsh 1987 : house of laws decision Claimant hurt working on demolition site , contractor - , a was clause in the contract a private council , illegally subcontracted , Ogwo v Taylor 1988 : Fireman hurt in fire that had been started by DIY Common law negligenc as the injury - a , was due to the the property activity rather than Who is liable ? Wheat Lacon 1966 husband fell down stairs in brevry & died lights test of control no railings · V : or , , , claimed under OLA 1957 breweries found , not occupiers , went to horse of lords Who may claim ?: Law provides compensation ONLY when injury is someone elses fault - Visitors may claim lawful & unlawful , - Common law Variable standards for different : types of visitors Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2003 : Dove into water became paraplegic sued the city there here signs - , , saying water is not safe Occupier employing independent contractors : - Haseldine VDaw 1941 : D was occupier & maintained elevators , contractor was a negligent claimant was injured , , court of appeals decided reasonableness should be considered D was found liable , qualified Woodward v Mayor of 1945 : Kid slips Hastings church steps , liable for the negligence of the person - on icy responsible for cleaning ice , had control over the persons work Special cases : - children : Children are less careful than adults extra care needs to be taken , · Phipps v Rochester Corporation 1935 : I kids on building ground , one fell in hole got hurt , not trespassing , hole not hidden but not was perceptible to children , where are parents ?? Trade : Roles Nathan 1963 : Two died of carbon monoxide occupier not chimney sweeps poisoning - , liable risk , was attached tojob didn't wait for it , to cool Defenses : - Consent · Contributory regligenc - Un-lawful visitors : trespassers trespassto land is , tort not crime , Private Nuisance : Continuous unlawful & indirect interference with the land , Use or enjoyment of - Cannot be one off , must be continuous Fearn v Board ofTrustees of the Tate Gallery 2023 : Were the defendants acts ordinary use necessary for its · Preliminary issue #1 : - Activity is an annoyance but not necessarily an actionable nuisance lie. Lord snorer) -. - Balance between land & level of right to enjoy tolerable annoy and - Who can sue : must have interest in land must own / have right , over land Those without interest cannot make claim , it Visitors servants Property family living -. , , on Private Nuisance : Key elements 1) Requirement of legal standing in connection with land affected 2) Unreasonable nuisance , NOT use of land amounts , to ordinary & Common use - Factors to be considered : of the claimant -Sensitivity , here they being overly sensitive - Time duration & intensity of the nuisance , De ban, , not from 10pm to fam Keysers Royal Hotel Spicer 1914 : pile driving not complete - , -Character of the nuisance in one area not be in another area , may Damage occurred must have been reasonably foreseeable · 3) Continuous & indirect interference 4) Claimant must suffer some harm Not actionable per se proof of damage/narm/inconvenience - , Defenses to private nuisance : · Statutory authority : can show it was authorized by law act in a certain have for so way cause they : -Prescription long - consent · Act of God Necessity - Remedies for private Nuisance : Damages - - Injunctions (Kennaway Thompson 1981) Abatement - Issues to consider : Inequality : is it fair just and reasonable - , , - Legal standing - Conflict with human rights Nature of locality character of the area - , Public Nuisanc : and convenience of a class Materially affects the reasonable comfort · Affects a section of a class of society - Normally criminal law crime & tort - , Requirements for public nuisance : Class not · one person - Must Suffer special or particulharm - local authorities commence proceedings on behalf of public - Tate & Lyl v Greater London Council 1983 : sugar factory accessed from the water , ferry terminal built couldn't terminal access from water any more found , affected a class of people - Fault : D is liable if they knew or ought to have known the risk same of type forsecability as private - Examples of public nuisance : - London Borough of Hackney V Persons Unknown in London Fields 2010 : - Concerns that when COVID ruks ended riots would occur, sought an order in advance - Attorney General vPYA Quarries LTD 1957 : D was emitting stones Aust , and vibrations from their. quarry disturbing local residents , class of society in neighborhood Civil action against public visance : 3 ways 1) By arealtor (rare) : brought inthe name of the attorney general on behalf of private citizen 2) a local authority under local government act 1972 By 3) An action for tort by a private citizen who can show they suffered special damage beyond that experienced by the others Defense & Civil Remedies : - Statutory authority is the main defense , alleged nuisma is permitted by statute Length CANNOT be used as defense · - Main Civil Remedies : Damages : financial compensation for harm caused - Prohibitory injunction to stop a certain act - Statutory Nuisance : to the environment Nuisances that are most damaging public health - or - Onrs is on the local authority Rylands Fletcher Rule : - D built a reservoir on his land , burst caused flooding tothe Rylands mine , D not to blame -Use of land must be non-natural on to land to create mischief , something must have been brought the Not your fault it escaped , doesn't reed to be inherently dangerous (ie Water) -. - Type of damage caused must be foreseeable - Evaluate rule : - Rule was decided when there was growing concern over bursting reservoirs & damaging property Negligence Duty of Care : Establishing a claim in negligence - - need below aspects : Dowed(aduty of care - - Dbreached the duty of care Breach of duty by D caused damage complained by 2 - Damage is not too remote · General Duty of Care : Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 Donoghue got a ginger beer at a cafe , in bottle drank most ,found snail in bottom of bottle seed the - opaque , , manufacturer but was not courts decided company owed duty of care , , party to the contract friend bought drink , - House of lords introduced general duty of cae of negligence , landmark judgement - Manufacturer did not need to know who would drink it , just someone would , class of people Expension of Liability : - Home office u Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd 1970 · Group of tens doing supervised work on an island one , night stole boat crashed it into should have been supervising yacht , yacht owner seed the home office , they Anns ~merton London 1978 Borough Council · House of lords proposed expansion to where would exist duty of care - > stage - approach : Was there significant relationship of proximity between person hurt& wrong doer ? Duty of care - a arises - if yes - Consider whether there are considerations to redue or limit scope of duty - Retreat from Anns : - Extensive judicial criticism of the expansion of liability in Anns - Anns 2 step approach is no longer used , overruled 3 stage test : current approach when looking at these situations Question ( of Whether Doved duty of care is not issue · 2 an - Caparo industries ~ Dickman 1990 2) Was the damage reasonably foreseeable ? Objective - , reasonable person test - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 : S million pairs of underwear sold , one mon had allergic reaction , still seen as foreseeable risk 2) Was there a relationship of proximity between D & C ? Legal proximity - - Watson v British Boxing Board of Control 2001 : famous boxer suffered severe brain damage during match , sued saying if he received care quicker hemay have been ok board did not take steps , to protect boxers 3) is it fair, & reasonable to impose just a duty ? floodgates argument - Calvert William Hill Credit Ltd 2008 : Calvert was bad gambler cannot expect companies to hold - , duty of care over all gamblers Policy case Illustrations: - Hill v Chief constable of West Yorkshire 1984 : Hill was victim of a serial killer , family seed police for failing to catch him , saying they owed a duty of care , court rejected this claim Breach of the duty of care : is the defendants conduct careless Objective Standard : reasonable person test Courts objective use on test , ignoring personal characteristics - - Nettleship Vueston 1971 : driving instructor & student 3rd lesson student , drove into lamp post , court found his in experience was irrelevant same , duty of care as any driver  Standard of reasonableness : not on unqualified duty to prevent harm to others - Consideration of magnitude of the risk - Relevant considerations : practicality of precautions seriousness of harm , , likelihood of harm Likelihood of the harm : Bolton Stone 1951 : (struck by cricket ball while standing quiet road this was rare , 6y in 30 years - on , , risk foreseeable but small courts said no breach of , duty Severity of Harm : more serious consequences greater precautions need to be taken the Paris Steprey Borough Council 1951 D was employer metal chip in eye made : him blind , - , he argued failed to provide eye goggles even though not regularly used , was more at risk (blind in one eye already) so precautions should have been taken Practicality of Precautions judged in context : of likelihood of harm & severity of damage reduced D would be unreasonable not to take then If risk con be cheaply precautions - , - But big cost , little protection would not make sense to do - Latimer vAEC L + 1953 : C slipped in water & oil spill in factory , defendant found liable for damages - House of lords overturned said risk wasn't severe enough to close factory Special Breach of Doty Situations: · Characteristics of the Defendant : - children-rarely the defendant - Mullins Richards 1998 : 2 15 year olds playing with plastic rulers , fragmentflew into ones eye , this was not considered foreseeable risk - Professionals & special skills : expect a higher degree of care - Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee 1957 : C underwent electric shock treatment for psychiatric issues broke bones wasn't muscle relaxant , , given Bolam test was created : Dr not guilty of negligence if they acted in accordance with an accepted - practice by respected medical body - Bolam test & dutyto warn : judgethe level of medical information provided to a patient Prior to treatment based on what they'll understand Areas such as medicine , rapid advances change common practice -