Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

2 - Types of Tort (Negligence (Breach of duty (Greater the risk of…

- - - - Defendant is release from liability when damage is too 'remote'
      - Used to be that defendant wasn't responsible if damage was indirect
        
        Overruled by Privy Council in 1961
    - - Where damage is caused by pre-existing weakness defendant wasn't aware of
    - - If chain of causation is broken, defendant is not responsible for damage subsequent to this
  - - - 'Special relationship' but not contract where reasonable to depend on advice
      - Reliance not necessarily required if there is assumption of responsibility towards claimant by defendant
  - - - Less care expected for trivial activities
  - - - Courts reluctant towards claims where there is no physical damage
        
        Spartan Steel and Alloys vs Martin and Co. (Contractors) Ltd (1973)
  - - - Must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which may cause harm
  - - - Anybody who suffers physical harm can sue for any accompanying psychiatric harm
      - Claims are subject to principles of negligence and foreseeability
      - Only those claimants who suffer recognised psychiatric illness will succeed
        
        Most common is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
    - - Must prove duty of care was owed if no physical harm
      - Primary victims
        
        Suffer shock through fear for own safety
      - Secondary victims
        
        Suffer shock through fear for safety of others
        
        Must have 'close tie of love and affection'
        
        Closeness in space or time
        
        Must witness in person
    - - Stress
        
        Employer may be vicariously liable, if harassment in tort would be actionable against perpetrator
        
        Employer full liable for harassment of sexual or racial nature
      - 'Phobia cases'
        
        Fear of future illness such as asbestosis
        
        Can also apply to those exposed to hazardous substances not while in course of employment
      - Miscellaneous
        
        Includes witnessing damage to property
- - - - Defendant's hostile application of physical force
    - - Bodily restraint preventing claimant's freedom of movement
    - - That which causes the claimant to fear attack
  - - - More than interference, e.g. theft
      - Includes receiving stolen goods
  - - - Entry onto land
      - Remaining on land
      - Throwing or placing objects onto land
- - - - Intention doesn't need to be present but negligence does
    - - Person held accountable despite there being no fault
      - Tends to be when dangerous activities are undertaken
    - - Requirement for intention on part of defendant
- - - - Also must prove that it was aimed at them
  - - - Defamatory statement in permanent form, i.e. the written word
    - - Statement is in non-permanent form, e.g. speech
- - - - British Railways Board vs Herrington (1972)
        
        Liable for injury caused to trespassing child
    - - Extended duty of care to trespassers
        
        Occupier must know danger exists and be reasonably expected to offer protection
      - Liability usually placed on occupier, who is not necessarily the owner
    - - Duty of care owed to all visitors, excluding trespassers
  - - - Negligence
        
        Any person who suffers harm as a result of a product defect can sue
        
        Any person whose negligence caused the defect or allowed the defect to harm the claimant can be held liable
      - Consumer Protection Act (1957)
        
        Introduced form of strict liability for defectiveproducts
        
        Producer is liable for personal injury, or damage exceeding £275 to property, caused by a defect in their product
        
        'State of the art' defence
        
        Can avoid strict liability if scientific/technological knowledge at the time was not so that it would have been reasonable to expect discovery of defect
        
        Burden of proof still with producer
  - - - Makes common law duties of employer subject to criminal law
        
        Substantial fines and up to two years imprisonment
      - Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (2013)
        
        Breach of duty not civilly actionable unless regulations expressly provide it should be
      - Management of H&S at Work Regulations (1999)
        
        Employer may be sued if accident is due to failure to implement adequate risk assessments
    - - Employer can be held vicariously liable for torts which they themselves did not actually commit
        
        e.g. employee injuring a colleague
        
        Cover will be purchased under Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act (1969)
      - Barclays Bank vs Various Claimants (2018)
        
        Barclays held responsible for sexual assaults committed by independently contracted doctor
    - - Employers must take reasonable care to...
        
        Provide proper equipment and working environment
        
        Provide a safe system of work
        
        Select competent staff
      - Not 'strict' liability but very high duty of care
- - - - e.g. noise and pollution
    - - Success only when there is repetition
  - - - Allowing harmful things to transfer from defendant's land to claimant's land
      - Wrongful interference with rights attaching to the land
    - - Action must result in damage or adversely affect the claimant's ability to enjoy use of it
    - - Prescription Act (1832)
        
        If act has been undertaken without challenge for 20 years
      - Can't claim it is of overall benefit to community
    - - Usually damages or an injunction
      - Can also use reasonable 'self help', e.g. cut branches from tree
    - - Work by builders causing damage to adjoining property
      - Liability insurers unlikely to become involved as physical loss required for policy to respond