![Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/90638/listing/90638_1.jpg)
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2002] 3 WLR 89 HL Summary The three appeals dealt with by the House of Lords involved employees who had been exposed to asbestos at work and had subsequently contracted mesothelioma (a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure). In each case the employee concerned had been exposed to asbestos by more than one employer during his working life. This made it difficult for the claimants to establish that any particular employer's negligence had caused the mesothelioma, because medical science does not know exactly how asbestos causes the disease. In particular, it is currently impossible to say whether the action of a single asbestos fibre, a few fibres, or the cumulative effect of many fibres causes the disease. It is possible to say, however, that the greater the quantity of fibres inhaled the greater the risk of developing the disease. Given this evidence the Court of Appeal concluded that the claimants were unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that the negligence of the particular employers who they had sued had caused the disease, or made a material contribution to it. The House of Lords, however, held that in the special circumstances of the case it was sufficient for the claimants to prove that the negligence of the particular employers had increased the risk of the employees contracting the disease.
Defamation Law
"TWO TORTS OR ONE" THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIBEL & SLANDER RESEARCH PAPER IN TORTS - II SUBMITTED BY: ANKITA GODBOLE ID NO: 1551 1ST YEAR, B.A., LL.B. (HONS.), II TRIMESTER, DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20TH DECEMBER, 2007. NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY Table of Contents Table of Cases 3 Introduction 4 Research Methodology 5 Chapter 1 6 From Slander to Libel and the English Law 6 Chapter 2 10 The Libel - Slander Distinction and the Indian Law 10 Chapter 3 13 The Debate: "Libel & Slander" - Two Torts or One? 13 Conclusion 15 Bibliography 16 Table of Cases * Dawan Singh v. Mahip Singh, (1888) ILR 10 All 425. * Dixon v. Holden, (1896) LR 7 Eq 488. * Harakh Chand v. Ganga Prasad Rai, (1924) ILR 47 All 391. * Harman v. Delany, (1731) 93 Eng. Rep. 925. * Hirabai v. Dinshaw, (1927) ILR 51 Bom 167. * Narayana Sah v. Kannamma Bai, (1931) ILR 55 Mad 727. * Parvathi v. Mannar, (1884) ILR 8 Mad 175. * Sukan Teli v. Bipal Teli, (1905) 4 CLJ 388. * Thorley v. Kerry, 4 Taunt. 355. * Villers v. Monsley, (1769) 2 Wils. 403. Introduction "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord. Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; `Tis something, nothing; `Twas mine, `tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed." -
Liability Without Fault
Liability Without Fault (Sections 140 – 144) Submitted to: Submitted by: Ms. Harman Shergill Yashika Sharma 9th Semester Section - B 109/08 Table of Contents Table of Cases Introduction Necessity of the principle Section 140 Requirements of this section: Scope and Applicability of the Section. Filing of a petition under Section 166 is not a condition precedent for grant of interim compensation. Permanent Disablement. No fault liability is cast on owner and not directly on insurer. Liability of insurer. Quantum of Compensation. Scope of enquiry. Negligence of owner or driver need not be proved. Section 141 Section 142 Section 143 Section 144 Bibliography Table of Cases Babban Tiwari v. Usha Ranjan Chakraborty Bishan Devi v. Siraksh Singh Baatchigari Subba Rao v. A. Amarnath Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi Dorakonda Venkatrama Seeshachalapathi v.Vijaywada Coop. Central Bank Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahemdabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai Hans Raj v. Charanjit Jawa Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Garji Devi Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. Aiysa Bibi K. Nanda Kumar v. Managing Director , Thantal Periyar Transport Corporation Lakhan Singh Niranjan v. Ramkesh Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. Mohd. Sabbir Mahila Ramdevi v.
A clear difference can be defined when determining what general tortious liability is compared and contrasted to contractual liability.
Assignment 2 Law, Business and Society a) i) A clear difference can be defined when determining what general tortious liability is compared and contrasted to contractual liability. In the case of Tort liability; a contract is not involved, but this fact does not mean an individual or company cannot be held accountable for their actions or lack of. To give an example, at a bakery some grains have spilled out of a bag, leaving a spill of grains all over the shop floor and when a customer arrives he or she slips and falls due to the spilled grains and gets injured. The injured individual cannot file for a contractual liability claim, however he or she can make a file for a tortuous claim. To define who can sue in the case of tort it would entail the "injured party" and not only can they sue the seller (In the example the baker) but they can also sue the manufacturer of goods, the servicer and supplier. On the other hand when dealing with a contractual liability a whole different scenario is established. In the case of contractual liability, a contract is indeed involved. So when someone is liable by contract, it means he or she is doing something wrong that was entailed in the contract making him or her liable, also known as a breach of contract. When someone is held liable he or she can claim damages only for the people involved in the contract, and can only sue the seller.
![McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above statement of Lord Bridge in the context of subsequent developments in the law relating to compensation for psychiatric injury, caused by the negligent actions of a tortfeasor.](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1209097/listing/1209097_1.jpg)
McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above statement of Lord Bridge in the context of subsequent developments in the law relating to compensation for psychiatric injury, caused by the negligent actions of a tortfeasor.
‘In approaching the question whether the law should, as a matter of policy, define the criterion of liability in negligence for causing psychiatric illness by reference to some test or other than that of reasonable foreseeability it is well to remember that we are concerned only with the question of liability of a defendant who is, ex hypothesi, guilty of fault in causing the death, injury or danger which has in turn triggered the psychiatric illness. A policy which is to be relied on to narrow the scope of the negligent tortfeasor’s duty must be justified by cogent and readily intelligible considerations, and must be capable of defining the appropriate limits of liability by reference to factors which are not arbitrary’. McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above statement of Lord Bridge in the context of subsequent developments in the law relating to compensation for psychiatric injury, caused by the negligent actions of a tortfeasor. Is existing law in this area satisfactory? If not, how might it be improved? Lord Bridge’s statement in McLoughlin can be broken down into two parts. The first part considers the liability in this area of law; the only question should be ‘who is guilty of causing the psychiatric injury’. The second part considers narrowing the floodgate by using policy consideration. His Lordship raised two
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
'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea '- 'An act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy'.
'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea ' - 'An act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy'. 'Mens rea' or 'blameworthy mind' as one of the essential components of criminal liability is very difficult to define precisely inasmuch as 'blameworthy ' can have a different meaning dependant on the offence. The courts have developed various approaches to clarify the meaning and definition of these required elements in the common law as well as the defences that mitigate or negative mens rea to varying degrees. An act can be completed but no liability falls on the defendant if he can disprove mens rea. Liability may be mitigated partially or completely either by a recognised defence or reasonable mistake. However, there are circumstances where mens rea is found or not required and the defendant is blameless, but liability still conferred. The maxim 'actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea' forms the basis for defining the 2 elements that must be proved before a person can be convicted of a crime, the actus reus or 'guilty act' and mens rea or 'blameworthy mind'. In B (a minor) v D.P.P. [2000] 2 AC 428, the appeal court held that "Mens rea was an essential element of every criminal offence unless Parliament expressly or by necessary implication provided to the contrary." There has for centuries been presumption that Parliment did not
How does the law of tort apply in the context of sport?
Negligence and Participants in Sport Negligence may be defined as the breach of a legal duty owed by a defendant to a claimant for which the claimant has suffered loss. It is now trite law that that there is duty of care1 between those playing competitive sports - the question therefore arises what standard this duty of care requires. Wooldridge v Sumner2 set a very high threshold for claimants to meet - the court shall only uphold any claim for negligence where the competitor has shown a reckless disregard for the safety of others. In Condon v Basi, determining the duty was not necessary because the breach was 'obvious'3 although Lord Donaldson MR explicitly based the duty of care in the general duty of care4 first formulated in Donoghue v Stevenson.5 Condon v Basi is clear: the general negligence duty of care will apply.6 That approach is further supported by Smoldon v Whitworth which held that the standard was objective but also: "that which is appropriate in all the circumstances."7 Those circumstances include that competitors are expected to go "all out" to win in a competitive contest.8 The application of the Condon v Basi 'appropriate in all the circumstances' test has been criticised9, not least because of the judge's obiter dicta statement that gave rise to the potential possibility of a variable standard of care10. However, in Elliott v Saunders11, it was accepted
property law
The Law of Personal Property Assignment We all know the story of the unfortunate Mrs Donoghue, whose encounter with a decomposing snail not only spoilt what she thought was going to be a quiet drink with a friend, but went on to form the basis of the case which is credited with giving birth to the modern law of negligence. One of the reasons why Donoghue v Stevenson1 was such a landmark is that before it, the remedies available to a consumer who was injured by a product were very limited. Today, however, the picture is very different, and there are a range of remedies available for the users of defective products, coming from the common law of both contract and tort, and from statutory provisions, again both in contract and tort. Which actions are available in a particular case will depend on whether the claimant is the person who bought the product or not, whether the product is defective in the sense of not doing its job properly, or actually dangerous, and what type of damage is caused as a result of the product's defects. There three types of action interlock with each more or less restrictive in these different areas. Before Donoghue the only real remedy for users of defective goods was the law of contract. This provided that someone who bought a product that was defective could sue the person they bought it from for a breach of contract. The protection that this
But Parliament has made it clear that in the case of a lawful visitor, one starts from the assumption that there is a duty whereas in the case of a trespasser one starts from the assumption that there is none.Discuss the above statement with
Question 1 Please note you must answer both parts of this question. v a. "But Parliament has made it clear that in the case of a lawful visitor, one starts from the assumption that there is a duty whereas in the case of a trespasser one starts from the assumption that there is none." Per Lord Hoffman in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46. Discuss the above statement with reference to the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984, critically evaluating the potential liability of an occupier under both Acts. (Word limit 1500 words) AND b. Clare is the owner-occupier of Red Cottage, which is situated in a mainly residential district, close to a major railway line. Daniel, the owner of adjoining land, is carrying out construction works on his land and, for this purpose, has recently placed a tower crane on his land. Daniel's ground is unstable and he needs to drive piles into the ground in order to provide a secure foundation for his new building. Daniel expects to complete these pile driving operations in six weeks' time. Clare complains of the following: i) Her sleep is being disturbed by the noise from Daniel's pile driving operations, which are often carried on late into the night. ii) The boom of Daniel's tower crane regularly invades the airspace above the garden of Red Cottage. Whilst this does not cause or threaten any interference with Clare's
