Law of Torts

Law of Torts

Torts are civil wrongs are actioned usually by a claim for compensation. sometimes can be successful even when criminal claim not
1. Negligence
  1. seek successful have to show: duty of care, Duty breached, Damage caused.
  2. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) snail in bottle bought by friend, made ill. sued manufacturer sufficient proximity scope of negligence claim increased. 'neighbour principle established'
  3. Reasonable man
    1. Glasgow corpn v taylor (1922) owned botanic gardens child ate poisonous berry, no warning child died not fenced off. GC liable.
  4. Egg shell skull principle: taken as found claims may increase as result.
    1. Paris v Stephney Borough Council (1951) only sight one eye employed not offered safety goggles splinter of metal blinded him breach of duty should've provided serious harm more than other workers.
  5. Practicality and cost:take into account cost>safety/damage.
    1. Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) def slipped factory floor, flood put up warning and sawdust. def said shouldve closed factory. no breach no duty to close only had to take reasonable precautions lower risk.
  6. Res IPSA Loquitur: principle mere occurrence some accident is sufficient negligence
    1. Mahon v Osborne (1939) patient dies shortly after surgery. post mortem fund swab in body negligence established.
  7. Damages- remoteness: only claimed if reasonably foreseeable.
    1. Te wagon Mound (1961) vessel leaked oil lead to cotton igniting. fire spread damage to some boats. test of remoteness = foreseeable therefore reliable
  8. Defence to Negligence: contributory Negligence: reduce damages claimed.
    1. Sayers v Harlow UBC (1958) woman locked in toilet tried to escape fell off toilet roll holder, injured herself. contributory negligence as woman tried to free herself.
      1. Nettleship v weston (1971) Learner driver taught by friend, drive into pole, friend fractured knee. voluntarily accept risk, damages 50%
2. Trespass physical contact that occurs with assault
  1. Collins v Wilcock (1984) police on duty. seen known prozzy and another woman. follwoed her refused to talk. took hold woman, swore and scratched. held: pw no more right than anyone, physical contact beyond lawful. constituted battery.
3. Defamation: only requires apprehension of violence.
  1. Janvier v Sweeney (1919) false words/threats calc cause physical injury. 2 detectives inspect letters believed maid access, persuade using false statements maid fell ill with nervous shock.
4. Nuisance: Private and public.
  1. Sedleigh- Denfield v O'callaghan (1940) council work on def land grate placed wrong. prone blockages cleaned periodically. heavy rain storm flooded. def liable continue with nuisance.
    1. Tate&lyle v Greater London Council (1983) sugar refinery river thames larger vessel after a time unable to get through shallow waters. further dredging cost 540,000. nuiscace recover cost. denied at private as no rights to certain depth. succeeded public affected public navigation rights.
Defence: consent
1. R v Billinghurst (1978) during rugby b punched R fractured jaw. GBH consent? conseted to risk of game prove outisde normal expectation. Held: limits to violence not deemed consent.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Megan Lloyd over 7 years ago