100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Summary Tort Law - Case Law $3.77   Add to cart

Summary

Summary Tort Law - Case Law

3 reviews
 152 views  2 purchases
  • Course
  • Institution
  • Book

This document contains all case law of Tort Law.

Last document update: 6 year ago

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

  • Unknown
  • March 30, 2018
  • March 30, 2018
  • 4
  • 2017/2018
  • Summary

3  reviews

review-writer-avatar

By: janabamassaquoi • 5 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: daniella017 • 5 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: rosha_shanty • 6 year ago

avatar-seller
Lieke Spruit (16030575) Tort Law



Case law
Case name Topic Principle

Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] Strict liability; This case established a new tort which provided
nuisance for strict liability of defendants in certain
nuisance-related situations. The required
elements of the tort are as follows:
• In the course of ‘non-natural use’ of the
land,
• The defendant brings onto his land and
collects and keeps there.
• Something likely to do mischief if it
escapes;
• It does escape,
• And causes damage of a foreseeable
kind

The defendant was held strictly liable on the
basis that he had collected this mischief-causing
water on his land and allowed it to escape and
damage the plaintiff’s land.


Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Duty of care This case provides an early example of the
[1928] unforeseeable claimant. Although the
defendant owed a duty of care to the nearby
passengers regarding their person and
property, it was unforeseeable that the plaintiff
was at risk and therefore no duty was owed to
her.


Robinson v. Balmain Ferry Intentional The plaintiff was caught on the wrong side of
[1910] torts; false the defendant’s turnstile and could have passed
imprisonment through by paying one penny. For this reason, it
was not accepted that he had been falsely
imprisoned.


Herring v. Boyle [1834] Intentional No need for the plaintiff to have been aware of
torts; false the imprisonment but knowledge of the
imprisonment detention might be relevant to the assessment
of damages.


Murray v. Ministry of Defence Intentional Knowledge of the restraint of freedom of
[1988] torts; false movement was not necessary to establish false
imprisonment imprisonment.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

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

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 liekespruit1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $3.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

66579 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$3.77  2x  sold
  • (3)
  Add to cart