-
What is a tort?
A tort is a civil wrong aimed at protecting individuals against infringements of their own personal rights.
-
Infringements may be against what?
These infringements may be against another's property, reputation or person.
-
The law of torts provides rules of conduct that ......?
regulate how members of society interact,
-
The law of torts provides remedies if ..........?
the rules are breached and damage is suffered.
-
The normal remedy for a proven tort is .....?
"Unliquidated Damages"
-
"Unliquidated Damages" = ?
Damages determined by the court
-
List Types of torts
- Unintentional
- Intentional
- Torts against chattels i.e. movable property
- Torts against land
- Tort of defamation
-
Unintentional torts are often considered what?
Tort of negligence
-
Intentional torts include:
- Torts against the person
- Torts against chattels i.e. movable property
- Torts against land
- Tort of defamation
-
Torts against the person include
- assault
- battery i.e. offensive personal contact with another
- false imprisonment
- Torts against chattels i.e. movable property i.e. damaged personal property include:
- conversion of goods i.e. deprives an owner of personal property without their consent.
- Torts against land include:
- trespass
- public nuisance i.e. actions that threaten the health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community
- private nuisance i.e. an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land
- The three types of wrong dealt with by the law of tort include:
- Causing physical injury to another intentionally or negligently (trespass to the person and negligence)
- Interfering with another's land or goods(trespass to land ,trespass to goods and nuisance)
- Making a false statement about another (defamation)
-
Remedies in tort include:
- Damages -real/nominal/exemplary
- Injunction -where damages would not be adequate
-
The elements that need to be proven by a plaintiff to succeed in a claim for negligence are:
- That he was owed a duty of care by the defendant
- That the duty of care was breached by the defendant
- That the plaintiff suffered damage (property/physical/psychological and/or loss of earnings), which was substantially caused by the defendant's act /omission
-
Define Tort of negligence
A duty is imposed on a person by law to act with care towards others. If this duty exists and there is a failure to act carefully and another suffers loss, then the tort of negligence is committed.
-
For a successful action under the Tort of Negligence what conditions must be proved?
- A duty of care must be owed by one person to another.
- There must be a breach of that duty of care.
- Damages (physical or financial) must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty.
-
Describe the Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) case
Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the bottle over her ice cream and also drank some from the bottle. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue suffered personal injury as a result. She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer.
-
What was held by the court in the Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) case?
Her claim was successful. This case established the modern law of negligence and established the neighbour test.
-
What does the 'neighbour principle' established in Donoghue v. Stevenson mean?
'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.'
-
'Who in law is my neighbour?'
'Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as to being so affected when directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.' (Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
-
What is the foreseeability test in establishing a duty of care?
- Would a reasonable person foresee that damage may result from the defendant's action,
- i.e. is damage preventable and consequently avoidable?
- Consider Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC (1972) p48
- Held that council inspector should have foreseen the problem
- Held that council inspector owed duty to third party
-
What is the proximity test in establishing a duty of care?
- Historically, there must be some relationship between the parties,
- See Glencar Exploration Plc and Andaman Resources Plc v Mayo Co. Council (2002) p49
- Held: insufficient relationship of proximity
-
Describe Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC case
- Mrs Dutton sought to recover damages from the local council, Bognor Regis Urban District Council, whose building control survyor certified her house was sound, when it emerged that her house's foundations were defective because it had been built on a rubbish tip. Mrs Dutton had no direct contract with either the builder or the council.
- Judgment: The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Dutton could recover money from the council, as an extension of the principle in Donoghue v Stevenson. It was fair and reasonable that the council should be liable to a later purchaser of a house that its surveyor had negligently certified to be sound.
|
|
