Tort Law PDF

**[TORT LAW]** **[INTRODUCTION TO TORT LAW]** \***Tort**- occurs when there is a breach of a general duty fixed by civil law. It causes recognizable harm to people/ property. \***Difference between Tort and criminal law**- Tort is more focused on compensating the victim, whilst criminal is more f...

**[TORT LAW]** **[INTRODUCTION TO TORT LAW]** \***Tort**- occurs when there is a breach of a general duty fixed by civil law. It causes recognizable harm to people/ property. \***Difference between Tort and criminal law**- Tort is more focused on compensating the victim, whilst criminal is more focused on punishing the perpetrator. \***Situations where a tort may be applicable-** Negligence, Occupier's liability, nuisance, defamation, trespass, product liability, economic torts. **[ELEMENTS OF A TORT]** \***Elements of a tort**- **Duty of care, breach of duty, causation and damages.** 1. 2. 3. 4. **[NATURE + JUSTIFICATION IN THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE]** (Law of negligence:) \***3 interests that the law of negligence protects-** economic interests, property interests and personal injury (physical + psychiatric harm) \***Influence of the human rights act on the tort of negligence**- The **HRA 1998** integrated **ECHR (European convention on human rights)** principles into domestic law. E.g: development of new torts and procedural considerations. \***Tortfeasor**- A person/entity that commits a wrongful act and causes the other person/ entity to suffer personal or financial loss. \***Joint Tortfeasor**- When 2+ people's collective negligence in a single event causes damage to another person. \***3 Circumstances where a joint tortfeasor would be liable**- (tortious liability- responsible for an action.) -Concerted action- they act together to commit a wrongful act. -Independent acts causing invisible harm- separate acts by different parties combine and cause single, invisible harm to the claimant. -Vicarious liability- One party is held liable for the wrongdoings of another due to their relationship (E.g: employer and employee) \***4 aims of the law of negligence**- Duty, breach, causation, damages. \***Meaning of 'Judges can be influenced by policy considerations when making decisions involving negligence'**- (**Policy considerations: legal principles + societal values that influence the application and creation of laws)** When the courts act on **public interests (morally or publicly acceptable)** E.g: 'wrongful birth' cases- claimants claimed for the cost of raising a child after having undergone permanent reproduction prevention that failed due to being carried out negligently. It was held that society generally considered children to be a blessing, not a burden. Therefore, it wasn't appropriate to impose a duty of care. **[VICARIOUS LIABILITY]** \***Vicarious liability**- Indirect liability for the actions of a 'surbodinate' E.g: employer and employee. \***Why vicarious liability may seem controversial-** It makes an innocent party compensate for the torts of another party. There is an imbalance of power (employer vs employee). \***Why is it justifiable to impose liability on an employer**- It prevents any harmful acts, encourages accountability and the employer is in a better financial position to compensate (e.g: lower class cleaner vs big corporation). \***Difference between an employee and an independent contractor**- Employee: Paid at specific intervals based on the employment act and contract. (Long term) Independent contractor: Free from the business as they have service contracts (specific period of time) \* **4 Traditional tests that determine an employer-employee relationship**- 1. 2. 3. 4. \***Modern tests: Salmond test**- Determines the vicarious liability principle. The employer is liable if the 'harmful' act is: authorized by the employer or an unauthorized method is used to perform an authorized act. \***Modern tests: Course of employment test**- Torts committed in the course of employment, making the employer liable. **[CASE LAWS]** 1. 2. 3. 4. **[DUTY OF CARE]** **Key case: Donoghue v Stevenson-** case for the tort of negligence (duty of care-(liable) A woman drank ginger ale from the cafe containing a decomposing snail and sued the cafe, despite no contract. This developed the 'neighbor principle' , a duty of care that exists to avoid harm to those closely affected by one\'s actions. **[LORD WILBERFORCE'S 'TWO STAGE TEST']** -Anns v Merton London Borough council: created the 2 stage test to establish a duty of care. 1. 2. -This test was ruled inefficient eventually, judges didn\'t like applying 'policy considerations'. **[JUDICIAL RETREAT]** -1966 practice statement- allows the house to change their minds on previous decisions. -Murphy v Brentwood overruled Anns. -Arguing: The 2 stage test was broad and needed established categories on negligence. -'prima facie'='at first sight'. Sufficient evidence should proceed to judgement. **[CAPARO 3 PART TEST]** -The Caparo three-part test, established in Caparo Industries v Dickman , is used to determine whether a duty of care exists under the tort of negligence. The test considers the following elements: 1\. Reasonable Foreseeability A duty of care arises if harm to the claimant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions (Donoghue v Stevenson). In Caparo, it was held that the harm caused by an auditor's negligence to a company's shareholders was not reasonably foreseeable. 2\. Proximity There must be a sufficiently close relationship (legal or physical) between the claimant and defendant. Proximity can be established through time, space, or relationship (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire). In Hill, the police were held not to owe a duty of care to the victim of the Yorkshire Ripper because there was insufficient proximity between the police and the victim. 3\. Fair, Just, and Reasonable Imposing a duty of care must be fair, just, and reasonable in the circumstances. Courts often consider public policy. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, the Supreme Court clarified that public authorities are not immune from negligence claims, but a duty of care will not be imposed if it undermines their ability to perform public functions. Significant Points from Other Cases Donoghue v Stevenson established the "neighbor principle," the foundation of modern negligence law. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales reiterated that public authorities generally owe no duty to protect individuals unless a specific relationship or assumption of responsibility exists. The Caparo test ensures that duties of care are imposed where it is appropriate and consistent with justice and public policy.