Summary
Summary of Tort Law
- Course
- Institution
This goes over all of the relevant Torts in a clear set out way. It will also be with the relevant case law and with the potential defences which you can raise.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
joshuaholtz1
Content preview
RYLANDS V FLETCHER NegligenceR v F was a law created through common law, it started from a case. It is a strict Negligence is described in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks as the ‘omission to do somet
liability which concerns the escape of non-natural things which was bought would not do’. To prove negligence, you must prove three elements.
TORT LAW OVERVIEW: onto land then causes foreseeable damage. To prove R v F you need to prove
four elements:
1. There was a Duty of Care owed,
The DoC test is set out in Caparo v Dickman, previously neighbour principle form Donog
1. Bought something onto land approach states that for a DoC there must:
• Was something bought onto the land? (Giles v Walker) • Foreseeable damage (Kent v Griffiths)
2. Non-natural use of land • Sufficient proximity between C and D
• Was the thing bought onto the land a non-natural material. You • Time and space (Bournhill v Young/Mcloughin v O-Brien)
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1957 must consider the area For example, having oil in an industrial • Or relationship (Alcock)
Applies to: Lawful Visitors Only area is natural, but having that oil in fields is not natural. • Fair just and reasonable to impose a DoC
General Principles to Define: (Rickards v Lothian) • Should they owe a DoC for the actions taken? (Robinson v CC W
• s.2 OLA 57: ‘An occupier owes a DoC to those lawful visitors’ 3. Thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes 2. The Duty of Care was breached
• Occupier: ‘Degree of control over premises’ Wheat v E. Lancon and Co • If it escapes, would it cause mischief/damage. (Hale v Jennings For a breach we must determine what the ‘reasonable person’ is for this case and the fact
• s.1(3) OLA 57: premises ‘any fixed or moveable structure’ Bro) decide the level of care expected.
• Lawful visitor 4. Thing stored escapes and causes foreseeable damage I. Reasonable person factors
• Express permission: invited in, bought a ticket • Did it cause foreseeable damage, you do not need to foresee • Age (Mullin v Richards)
• Implied permission: police, salespeople, postal workers the escape. (Stannard (Wyvern Tyres) v Gore) • Apprentice/learner (Nettleship v Weston)
• Level of Duty of Care Owed Potential Defences to R v F • Expertise (Bolam v Frien Barnet Hospital)
• Reasonable precautions taken : Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway • Volenti non fit injura (consent): Peters v Prince Wales Theatre II. Standard of Care Factors
• Everyday don’t make O liable: Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016 • Act of Stranger: if stranger caused, D not liable (Perry v Kendricks • Degree of Risk = Higher SoC (Bolton v Stone)
• 2(3(a) ‘O must be prepared for children to be less careful’ Transport) • Special characteristics of C (Paris v Stepney BC)
• Children and Supervision • Act of God: unforeseen weather does not make D liable (Nichols v • Precautions taken (Latimer v AEC)
• Children should be under supervision, so courts are unwilling to Marsland) • Benefit in taking risk (Watts v Herts County Council)
find the O liable (Phillips v Rochester Corporation 1955) • Statutory Authority: if Parliament authorises D actions don’t make D liable 3. The breach caused damage
• Trades Person (Green v Chelsea Waterworks) You must also prove factual causation (but for) and the damage was not too remote (remo
• An O might be able to pass over the liability to a trade's person carrying out • Contributory Negligence: the C plays a part in the damage ‘precise chain of events from the breach to the damage not need be foreseeable’ Hughes
the work if they can prove the O took reasonable steps (Roles v Nathan). • Factual Causation: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
They must prove • Remoteness (cannot be too remote): The Wagon Mound
• Reasonable to entrust (Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd)
• Reputable tradesperson (Botomley v Todmordern CC)
Vicarious liability Potential Issues
• Break in chain: Knightly v Johns
VL is when a tort is committed by someone and then imposing liability onto
• The O checked the work done (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings) • Injury worse than foreseen does not matter: Bradford v Robinson Rentals
someone else. To prove this you must prove the elements of the Salmond Test:
• Not foreseeable damage can remove liability: Doughty v Turner Asbestos
1. Was the person who committed the tort employed by the D?
• C has health condition/refuses treatment don’t matter: Thin Eggshell Skull Rule (S
To decide this you can use multiple tests:
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1984 • Control test: does the E have control over the work and position?
Applies to: Trespassers Only (Hawley v Luminar Leisure) Private Nuisance
General Principles to Define: • Organisational test: if course business most likely employee General Principles to Define: (Defined as: the unlawful indirect interference with a person
• s.2 OLA 57: ‘An occupier owes a DoC to those lawful visitors’ • Economic reality test: consider other factors such as own tools, • Who can make a claim: anyone with an interest in the land (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
• Occupier: ‘Degree of control over premises’ Wheat v E. Lancon and Co payroll (Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and NI) • It will be launched against the person making the nuisance (Leaky v National Trust)
• s.1(3) OLA 57: premises ‘any fixed or moveable structure’ 2. Was the tort committed in the course of the employment? To prove PN the C must prove:
Who is a Trespasser Acts can make them during employment or outside the course of employment 1. Unlawful indirect interference of land
• Someone who hasn’t got express or implied permission to enter I. In the course of employment • Fire, noise, fumes: must be indirect
• Going beyond permission will make you a trespasser: The Carlgrath • ‘acting against orders’ Limpus v London General 2. Damage to the C
‘you invite someone into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite them to slide • ‘being negligent’ Century Insurance v N.I. Road Transport Board • Discomfort or inconvenience (Laws v Florinplace)
down the banisters’ II. Outside the course of employment 3. Interference was unreasonable
O owes a DoC to trespasser if: • Beyond duties ‘frolic of their own’ Beard v London General • ‘Beyond the bounds or normal conduct’, and caselaw also helps define what is/isn’t:
1. Aware of the risk Omnibus Co • Locality (Sturges v Bridgeman)
2. Knows or believes the T will come into the vicinity of it • Doing something unauthorised Twine v Beans Express • Duration (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks)
3. Reasonable to impose some degree of protection Potential issue • Sensitivity (Network Rail v Morris)
Potential Defences for O: • Criminal Act: Will only be liable if the D was put into the position to commit • Malice (Hollywood Silver Fox Farms v Emmett)
• Don’t need to warn against obvious dangers: Ratcliff v Mcconell the criminal act Lister v Hesley Hall • Social benefit (Miller v Jackson)
• Time of day can be relevant: Donoghue v Folkstone Updated Approach (Established in Lister v Hesley Hall) Potential Defences
• Didn’t know danger existed: Rhind v Astbury Water Park 1. Must be a relationship akin to employment • Prescription, (Sturges v Bridgeman) / Moving to nuisance (never succeeded) / Parliam
• Didn’t suspect a trespasser: Higgs v Foster 2. Must be close and sufficient proximity Thames Water) / Planning Permission (Wheeler v Saunders)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller joshuaholtz1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.09. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now