• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Fault as a concept in whichever area of law is a way of describing legal blame and responsibility

Extracts from this document...


Fault as a concept in whichever area of law is a way of describing legal blame and responsibility. The basic principle is that a defendant (D) should be able to foresee the harm caused by his actions and aims to avoid such. Fault is a way the courts aim to achieve justice or at least balance to loss suffered by the victim against the sanction imposed by the D. In criminal law, the requirement of Mens Rea (MR) is used to decide whether a D has intent when he commits the act and is at fault for his crime. In contract law, the person who breaches a contract is liable and in tort, foreseeable is appropriate in all aspects of negligence. Theoretically, fault liability requires intention or a conscious failure to take care by the D. However, the courts have developed the strict liability offences where state of mind is not taken into account when finding the D is at fault. For instance, in criminal law, when the protection of society in general is taken into consideration, MR is not needed to prove the culpability of the D who might not be at fault anyway. ...read more.


White 1910) and the act must be substantive enough to make the end result reasonably foreseeable (R v. Roberts) or else the D is not liable. The proof of a break in chain of causation will remove fault and results in an acquittal (R v. Blaue). MR can be seen as the main 'fault' element of the offences based on which the law divides different levels of fault. The highest is where specific intention is possessed by the D e.g. murder or to cause GBH (s.18 Offence against the Person Act 1861). Recklessness involves fault in the sense that D has foreseen the risks of a consequence of his actions. This level is sufficient for s47 OAPA 1861 (R v. Ireland 1997 or Chan-Fook 1994). Negligence is based on what the reasonable man would foresee. Gross negligence resulting in involuntary manslaughter is at a higher level than just negligence (Bateman 1925) There are various defences available in the criminal law which can reduce or eliminate fault. These are said to allow the element of doubt in the law which is strictly on the basic beyond reasonable doubt. ...read more.


Stevenson 1932) to his neighbour. Professionals are measured according to their own standard (Bolam 1957). Damages will only be awarded when the damage is not too remote a consequence of breach (The Wagon Mount (no 1) 1961). Fault can also be found in Occupiers' liability under the 1957 Act which is basically that the D is liable because he creates a foreseeable harm casing the visitor damage or injury (Moloney v. Lambeth LBC 1966). Also, in nuisance, fault can be diagnosed where malice is an issue from either the D or C (Christie v. Davey 1893). Even in vicarious liability which is a form of strict liability, an employer is at fault for the tort of his employees as he is bound to hire appropriate staff and has control over their actions during the course of their employment. Problem is that is this fair or not? Public protection once again is considered here. In general, although there has been suggestion for the reform of fault liability as it seems to be unfair to V (secondary victims - Alcock 1992 or cases of medical negligence) or even D, the use of fault in law is said to be essential to maintain a just system. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 ...

    5 star(s)

    On a reference by the industrial tribunal the ECJ held that the Equal Treatment Directive could not be confined to sex discrimination, but extended to discrimination of the soft practised here.

  2. Consider the meaning and importance of fault-based liability in English law

    will try to show that the defendant was at fault, whilst the defence aim to show that they were not at fault, and during sentencing the amount of fault which the defendant is considered to have will affect the severity of their sentence.

  1. negligence in tort

    In practice, medical negligence cases present problems in causation, as medical science may not be able to identity the precise cause of the claimant's damage. In the case Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988), the plaintiff was An event which occurs after the breach of duty, and which contributes

  2. Cases on provocation

    It is for the jury to determine whether the provocation was enough to cause a reasonable (or ordinary) person, whatever they understand that term to mean, to behave as the defendant did. The essence of provocation, as set out by Devlin J and approved by the Court of Criminal Appeal

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    culpability between the defendant who adverts to a risk and the one that does not. Secondly, he suggested that it was not a practicable distinction for use in a jury trial. The answer to the first seems to be that moral philosophy clearly draws a distinction between the deliberate risk-taker


    Contrast, however, Rennaway -v- Thompson (1980) where the nuisance complained of was noise from motorboat racing and water-skiing. The Court of Appeal held that a nuisance existed and they granted an injunction, which limited the number of days on which large-scale activities could take place, and limited the noise level on other occasions.


    case study that Jane's invention causes headaches in humans and is fatal to plants. With the three key ingredients of the tort fulfilled it is established Jane is liable under private nuisance. From the facts in the case study I can see no defence available to Jane.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there." The occupiers of the premise must concern about the visitors for example the safety of the visitors.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work