Vicarious Liability is a type of strict liability where a person is held to be responsible for torts committed by someone else even though he himself is not at fault
Vicarious Liability is a type of strict liability where a person is held to be responsible for torts committed by someone else even though he himself is not at fault. At its early stage in the early English Law, vicarious liability used to hold a master responsible for all of his servant's wrongs. The master's liability could be justified by reference to the Latin maxim "qui facit per alium facit per se"1. Due to the increasing hazards arising from the modern industry and the assumption that a master could exercise a closer control over his servants necessitated a wider range of responsibility. By the early 19th century2, the basis of the modern principle was finally laid down holding an employer liable for all torts committed by the servant "in the course of employment". In Imperial Industries Ltd v Shatwell3 Lord Pearce pointed out that the doctrine is based on "social convenience and rough justice". It is considered by the courts that this modern principle is represents a compromise between two conflicting policies which this essay will be concentrated on. On one hand, is the social interest in furnishing an innocent tort victim with recourse against a financially responsible defendant; and on the other, is the hesitation to foist any undue burden on business enterprise.4 Starting from the first policy argument regarding the needs of tort for compensation, it can be
Advise the Parties as to their criminal liability, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory.
Danielle Thomas T31 Mr Peter Ramsay Advise the Parties as to their criminal liability, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. It is apparent that the issues of Transferred Malice, Grievous Bodily Harm, and defences such as Self-defence and mistake in elation to Intoxication are relevant to Charles liability. Indeed, it is purported that neither Albert or Bessie have done anything they could be criminally liable for. It is also suggested, that Charles' Intoxication is voluntary. It seems that the potential greatest offence that Charles may be liable for is Grievous Bodily Harm under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Indeed the actus reus of the offence states the defendant must 'wound or cause any grievous bodily harm... unlawfully'. Indeed the badly gashed head of Bessie could constitute a wound under the 'continuity of the whole skin be broken' rule found in Eisenhower1. 'Really serious bodily harm'(DPP v Smith2 ), is suggested to be the technical meaning of GBH, and it be argued to reflect the wounding of a badly gashed head. This however would be a question for the jury to decide. The mens rea of such a defence requires that the act be done 'maliciously' and with 'intent'. It is likely that Charles would fall under section 183 rather than section 20 of the act, which does not require intent. One could argue that
Describe the elements of the Tort of Negligence and critically analyse their practical applications.
Describe the elements of the Tort of Negligence and critically analyse their practical applications. Torts could be intentional or could arise out of negligence: people are responsible for injury caused to others not only as a result of their willful acts, but also by the want of care (lawschoolhelp). Tort of negligence arises out of the breach of a duty of care which is owed by people to others (Wikipedia).The principle of the tort of negligence is that all individuals should "exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances", in order not to hurt others (lawschoolhelp). The tort of negligence, in contrast to intentional torts, does not require intent from the side of the tortfeasor, nor knowledge or belief by the tortfeasor of what the consequences of his of her action or non-action are. The tort of negligence only requires that the act or omission has to create a risk as a consequence of it, and that this risk is foreseeable by a reasonable person in the same situation (torts). The elements that make the tort of negligent valid or actionable are that 1. it should be proved that the tortfeasor owed the claimant a duty of care, 2. that by negligent conduct the defendant broke this duty of care, 3. this negligent conduct caused a consequential legally actionable damage to the claimant, and that 4. there is a proximate connection
Tort Law - Negligence
"Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant." (Rogers, 2002) As Owens (2001) explains, in order to succeed with a claim for negligence, the claimant has to prove a number of factors which are individually specified in each of the following cases. To establish if the defendant is negligent, the claimant has to prove the following questions: Is there a duty of care? Was there a breach of the duty? Was the damage caused by the breach? The principle behind the duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) called the neighbour principle. A neighbour is defined by Keenan (2001) "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act ...". Caparro Industries plc v Dickman (1990) set-up three questions which have to be answered in order to establish whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant: Was the claimant reasonably foreseeable? Was there a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties? Is it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? (Keenan, 2001) If a duty of care is owed it has to be proven that the defendant has fallen bellow the standard of care required and there was a breach of the duty. A standard of reasonable care is expected: what a reasonable person would have done to prevent harm. In order to establish this, the Salmond test is applied with the following
Compare issue of aims in the tort law in different legal systems.
Compare issue of aims in the tort law in different legal systems. History of humanity is continuous chain of conflicts and wars, unfortunately. Such is a nature of human being - to struggle for a place under the sun, sometimes with harm of another person' interests. Individual through all life collides with conflict (with neighbors, parents, friends and even State) and not always these conflicts are decided peacefully. Sometimes results of such conflicts are pitiable - damaged health, property, dignity. We cannot avoid it. Fortunately, there are some mechanisms regulating these conflicts, directed on compromise of the parties, reimbursement of damage (physical, moral). Every State has its own "arsenal" of such mechanisms. There is one specific area of common law, named tort, which identifies circumstances in which someone who has suffered harm may obtain a remedy. In my coursework I consider not only definitions of tort and its history, but also issues, relating to the aims of tort and its remedies. I try to identify possible problems of the tort's objectives, according to different legal systems. There are a lot of definitions of "tort", one of more recent, is given by Peter Birks: The breach of a legal duty which affects the interests of an individual to a degree which the law regards as sufficient to allow that individual to complain on his or her own account rather
In the generality of personal injury actions, it is of course true that the claimant is required to discharge the burden of showing that the breach of which he complains caused the damage for which he claims and to do so by showing that but for br
Chapter 1: Introduction Chronologically, having traced back on the development before 1932 whereby most of the cases were decided on the ad hoc basis. It was indeed an uphill task for the 'triers' in the court even it appears to be a similar fact. Lord Atkin has planted a seed of the negligence in tort, which marked an important ink in tort law, nonetheless, still lead to criticism even it eased the latter judges.1 Similarly, to one of the controversial and skeptical elements in proving2 negligence and that is 'causation', the main issue to be discussed in this question on which test to be used that is best dressed in covering every situation, hence obiter by Lord Bingham.3 It is notably that, regarding on the issue stated by Lord Bingham in Fairchild4 is doubtless to say but a 'black hole' in the proof of causation as it still remains mysterious and unsolved. Without a second of thought, it has been said that 'But for Test' is the unsurpassed test since it has established, which borrowed from R v White5 in criminal law. It is of course rather bizarre to use the criminal law principles applying in the civil trial as it is utterly contradicting to the aim of tort via the maxim of damno sine injuria6 since it would be harder to prove every single injury beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, unquestionably, a lower standard will be granted in a civil case that is, on the balance of
Is it possible to frame an action in both trespass and negligence based on the same set of facts? If so, identify instances when trespass may be more attractive to a plaintiff?
Torts Question Is it possible to frame an action in both trespass and negligence based on the same set of facts? If so, identify instances when trespass may be more attractive to a plaintiff? Introduction This paper will firstly define the terms trespass and negligence. A discussion of the development or historical background to trespass and negligence will then be provided. A discussion of the historical background of trespass and negligence will assist the discussion of these questions and will provide an understanding of how any overlapping may have come about. Defining Torts Trespass and negligence are torts. A tort can be defined as an act or omission by the defendant that is an infringement of an interest of the plaintiff that is recognised by law. The law recognises that the interest is worthy of protection from an infringement created by an act or omission and it allows for a right of civil action for unliquidated damages1. Defining Trespass and Negligence The tort of trespass results from an intentional or negligent act of the defendant that directly inteferes with or causes an injury to the plaintiff's person or property. This inteference must be without the plaintiff's consent or lawful justification2. The tort of trespass is separated into three distinct torts, these being trespass to the person, trespass to land and trespass to goods. The tort
In the "A" part of this paper we'll go through several cases to which the tort law can be applied. The "B" part is a discussion of liability, standards and duty of care.
Tort Law Introduction The Law of Tort is a branch of the civil law which provides possible remedies for the protection of a person's interests in relation to different forms of loss which may be experienced as a result of different types of incident. Examples of loss may include physical damage to the body or to property, economic loss, emotional distress and injury to reputation. Various situations may give rise to such damage: traffic accidents, work-related incidents, medical incidents, economic loss caused by professional incompetence, incidents between adjoining neighbors and damage caused by animals. In the "A" part of this paper we'll go through several cases to which the tort law can be applied. The "B" part is a discussion of liability, standards and duty of care. A. Here we'll apply the tort law to three situations and will define how each person can be helped in the following situations: Property damage Bob's mobile phone is damaged because one of the sprinklers bursts in Diana's gym. Solution Diana knew that her fire-protection system should be serviced each year. The avoidable damage was negligently caused because she didn't take care of it. Her negligence caused damage which is to be compensated and she owes Bob a duty of care like in case Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd1: "... The fact that the immediate damage to the property of the respondents
The Role of Fault.
Law Essay: The Role of Fault "Fault is, and should be, an essential element in liability" Discuss the meaning of fault and explain your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the views expressed above. Relate your answer to liability in civil law, or in criminal law, or in both. To determine the circumstances in which a person may be legally liable for his acts or omissions is indeed one of the most fundamental functions of law in any society. The basis on which liability has traditionally been attached is on the basis of fault. Usually the law hinges both criminal and civil liability on fault, suggesting that at first glance, fault is an essential element in liability. In criminal law the requirement that mens rea or a guilty mind be established amounts to saying that criminal liability is imposed on blameworthy activity. This close connection between fault and mens rea results in punishment being based on the degree of moral blameworthiness that the defendant is believed to have possessed. The fact that this degree of blameworthiness not only determines whether the defendant will simply be found guilty or not guilty, but is concerned with the punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation of individuals whose conduct is considered by the law to be not only wrongs against other individuals, but also against society as a whole, suggests fault is clearly an essential element.
Duty of care and economic loss - major cases.
DUTY OF CARE: ECONOMIC LOSS Basic Distinctions The law draws a distinction between: . pure economic loss; and, . economic loss which is directly consequential of reasonably foreseeable physical damage. The law also distinguishes between: . pure economic loss caused by negligent misstatement; and, . pure economic loss caused by a negligent act of the defendant. Pure Economic Loss There is no liability for pure economic loss in the absence of a contract between the claimant and the defendant. In Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks (1875) L.R. 10 QB 453 Blackburn J held that building contractors could not recover extra expenses incurred in finishing a tunnel after water, from the defendant’s works had flooded the tunnel and nearby land. Although the flooding was caused by the defendant’s negligence, there was no contract between the claimant and the defendant and no duty was therefore owed. Blackburn J said “…the question arises, can Cattle sue in his own name for the loss which he has in fact sustained, in consequence of the damage, which the defendants have done to the property of Knight, causing him, Cattle, to lose money under his contract? We think he cannot.” This was accepted and applied by Widgery J in Weller & Co. v. Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966] 1 QB 569. The defendants occupied premises where they carried out experimental work in
