The level of fault is also dependant of whether the consequences were reasonably foreseeable, as seen in The Wagon Mound. In this case the ignition of a piece of cotton was deemed to be so far removed from the original spilling of oil that the fault of the oil company was negated. The level of damages awarded also indicates the level of fault associated with the breach of duty, as in general and special damages, where circumstances of the case and its implications dictate how much is awarded.
It is also important to consider the principle of vicarious liability, which imposes liability for someone else’s fault. In the workplace, the employer is liable for torts committed by employees during the course of their employment. This includes torts committed while the employee is doing is doing what he or she is authorised to do but in an unauthorised manner. In Rose v Plenty, the employer had forbidden other people riding on milk floats. The employer was nevertheless, vicariously liable, when a boy was injured while helping and employee deliver milk.
So far then, fault is a central element in the liability of tort, albeit that there are some exceptions. There is also a principle of no liability without proof in criminal law.
To be guilty of most criminal offences an actus reus and mens rea must be present. The actus reus must usually be committed voluntarily. If the defendant I not in control of their actions, there are general defences that may be used such as insanity, automatism and duress. I R v Bailey, the defendant, a diabetic, successfully pleaded the defence of automatism as he had been in a hypoglycaemic state after failure to eat after consuming sugar.
The mens rea is the mental element of the crime and the most important in deciding liability and thus fault. This is reflected in such statues as Offences against the person, where offences are of either basic or specific intent and therefore require some degree of fault. This is reflected in such cases as R v Cunningham, where it was decided no ill will had to be shown, but intention or recklessness as to whether such harm should be done. In Murder the most serious homicide crime, degrees of certainty on the part of the defendant have to be examined in order to prove fault, as shown in R v Woolin. The seriousness of murder is reflected in the mandatory life sentence.
This indeed shows the importance of fault in establishing liability in criminal law, which makes the system fair and just and is part of the notion that everyone is “innocent until proven guilty or at fault”.
However there are some areas of law where fault is not an essential requirement and this is in strict and absolute liability offences. These offences call for no proof of mens rea. In Smedleys v Breed, the defendants were convicted despite having taken all reasonable precautions to prevent contamination of their food products. Absolute liability offences require not mens rea or actus reus, as seen in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent. The defendant was found guilty of being drunk on a highway even though he had been placed there by police.
Some may consider this unjust, but many believe these offences are necessary to protect the public and to eradicate bad and careless practices in offences such as heath and safety. In some certain circumstances such as motoring offences it may be impossible to prove mens rea, and therefore prove fault. The further advantages of not having fault are that it saves court time and legal costs are reduced as a consequence. Some argue that having no fault encourages a higher standard of care.
But I believe that stating that fault should not be an essential part of English law is unjust and a highly flawed concept, as it means people would be charged whether they intended the consequences of their actions or not.
Overall I believe that fault is an essential requirement of the English Legal system, and should remain so.
