Concise yet comprehensive revision notes for Tort Law final exams. I achieved a 72 in this 100% exam-based module with these notes. Can be learnt in a few days. Good luck with your studying and exams!
Wilkinson v downton. Ryland v Fletcher
Revision Tort
Functions of Law of Torts
- Deterrence
o Gives incentives for people to not behave in a certain way
o For: cost-effective, instrumental in e.g. avoiding harm, policy-driven approach
o Against: Strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher, intentional torts in trespass to the person
- Corrective Justice
o Tortfeasor held liable for the reparation of the harm
o For (and usually against deterrence): Value-oriented, internal approach (judges apply law as
it is without considering other factors, e.g. insurance), principled approach
o Against: Strict liability, vicarious liability, Fairchild case (policy-driven)
- Compensation Culture
o Transform injuries into claims for compensation
o For: consumer-friendly, stress-free, name-blame-claim approach, awareness of injured
parties’ rights needed, explains strict liability
o Against: insurance companies pay damages, therefore the public ultimately pays with
increased cost of living
- Influence of Human Rights
o Applied in light of HRA 1998
o For: Michael v Chief Constable, duty of care of the police
o But: Tort Law is broader and protects further interests – private nuisances
Tort of Trespass to the Person
- No damage required (except Wilkinson v Downtown ‘inflicting harm’ rule)
- Interference must be direct (except WvD ‘indirect’ rule)
- Intention required (Fowler v Lanning; Letang v Cooper)
o Fowler v Lanning: C shot at shooting party, burden of proof on C to establish intention of D
o Letang v Cooper: C sunbathing and unintentionally runover, no action in TtP. Lord Denning
MR: abolition of negligent trespass, Diplock LJ: more moderate view, intention to go to court
but room to explore negligence
- Battery
o Unlawful touching of another person
‘Unlawful contact’
Direct contact
Hostile contact
o Wilson v Pringle: Schoolboy injured from fall during horseplay –
hostility is any touching in a way C would object to; broad
Lack of consent
o Chatterton v Gerson: Surgeon gained consent but did not inform
about side effects. Consent valid where patient informed about
treatment, even if only in broad terms
o Reibl v Hughes (1981; Canada SC): ‘unless there had been a
misrepresentation or fraud to secure consent to the treatment, a
failure to disclose the attendant risks, however serious, should got to
negligence rather than battery.’
- Assault
o Creation of reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery
Apprehension of… = Expectation of …; no fear required
‘Imminent’
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 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 jellybean123. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
