Under what circumstances will an occupier be liable for injuries or other losses suffered by persons on his land?
Under what circumstances will an occupier be liable for injuries or other losses suffered by persons on his land? The question of occupier's liability is simple in fact, but complex in terms of the various definitive elements it contains, as well as posing a challenge to answer concisely, given the vastness and detail of pertinent statute as well as case-law. The following essay will attempt to address the issue with briefness and precision, beginning with defining the term "occupier" and then considering the classes of persons to whom an occupier would be liable, as well as the degrees and circumstances of this liability. Definition of an "occupier" A person is generally considered to be an "occupier" whenever he "has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realize that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there... In order to be an occupier it is not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises. He need not have exclusive occupation. Two or more people may be 'occupiers'."1 In this case, the defendants owned a pub run by an outside manager. The manager was allowed to use the first floor of the pub as his own private accommodation. A guest of the manager was killed falling down the stairs on he first floor of the pub It was held that the defendants were occupiers if the pub and had
![Tort Law Problem Case. The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is alleging, inter alia[1] that the SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust has caused the death of Mr Fogg and that the defendants are liable of negligence and trespass to t](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/946785/listing/946785_1.jpg)
Tort Law Problem Case. The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is alleging, inter alia[1] that the SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust has caused the death of Mr Fogg and that the defendants are liable of negligence and trespass to t
Fogg v SimpleFlight.Com Ltd & Fogg v PAssepartout NHS Trust Judgement 5 November 2011 The Plaintiff (widow of the deceased) namely Mrs Fogg is alleging, inter alia1 that the SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust has caused the death of Mr Fogg and that the defendants are liable of negligence and trespass to the person. My legitimate concern is to acknowledge the involvement of the third party namely 80 Day Tour Travel which also plays a significant role in this case. In establishing negligence I shall examine all the elements of liability2 of SimpleFlight.Com and Passepartout NHS Trust to Mr Fogg. Negligence involves duty of care3, Breach of the duty of care4, causation5, demage6 and remote7. To establish the breach of the duty of care I shall consider the factors and standard reasonableness as defined in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)8 "Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The standard demanded is thus not of perfection but of reasonableness. It is an objective standard taking no account of the defendant's incompetence - he may do the best he can and still be found negligent" 9 To ascertain if Mr Fogg was injured as the result of 80 Day Tour
Discuss the justification for vicarious liability and whether the recent developments in case law have overcome the limitations in vicarious liability in modern conditions.
Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability applied where it is ‘fair, just and convenient’ to do so. (Viasystems v Thermal Transfer) Discuss the justification for VL and whether the recent developments in case law have overcome the limitations in VL in modern conditions. Vicarious liability (VL) is a form of joint liability in both person who committed the tort and the employer can be sued. VL arises when the relationship between the tortfeasor and the party who becomes VL which justifies giving the latter responsibility for the acts of the former. In modern law, this is usually the relationship between the employer and employee and so VL cases usually involve events which happen at or in connection with work. There are three key elements to be satisfied for VL to arise namely that a tort must be committed, the person who commits the tort is an employee and the tort must be committed during the course of employment. Justifications VL has become a practical tool and several justifications. Firstly, it helps to compensate the victims since it allow liability to be placed on a party who is likely to be insured, where the tortfeasor will probably not have the resources to meet the claim. It is obvious that the employer is in the best financial position to meet a claim either because its resources are simply greater or more often, they have relevant insurance coverage.
Tort Law Essay . The purpose of this essay will be to advise on claims for nervous shock, pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, actions upon death and also liability of public bodies.
University of Hull Law School Undergraduate Assessment Essay 22048/22116 Law of Tort 3th May 2013 Introduction The purpose of this essay will be to advise on claims for nervous shock, pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, actions upon death and also liability of public bodies. I will demonstrate what is required for certain types of claims and how the victims can be compensated, also why there are limitations upon duties owed by e.g. public bodies and the rights to certain types of claims. A number of cases will help to clarify how these different areas of tort are dealt with in the courts and the principles underpinning those decisions. Main Body . (A) It could be said that the initial attempts at carving out the distinctions between primary and secondary victims culminated in the case of Dulieu v. White[1]where Kennedy J stated “Mere fright not followed by consequent physical damage will not support an action, but if it is followed by consequent physical damage, then, if the fright was the natural result of the defendants' negligence, an action lies, and the physical damage is not too remote to support it.”[2] This case took the foreseeability requirement into account in determining claims for primary victims. Page v. Smith[3] concerned primary victims who were not physically injured despite being exposed to danger of such injury. The case held that there was a
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.
Under what circumstances can an employer be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by his/her employees? Why should one person be held liable for the tortious acts of another?
Under what circumstances can an employer be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by his/her employees? Why should one person be held liable for the tortious acts of another? Introduction The essay topic relates to situations in which one person is responsible for the torts committed by someone else; this is known as vicarious liability. Vicarious liability arises where the employer has done nothing wrong but where a tortuous act has been committed by an employee. This means that the employer who is not at fault will still have to pay damages. The essay seeks to answer the following questions: . What is the difference between employees and self-employed? 2. What is vicarious liability? 3. Why should one person be held liable for the tortious acts of another? 4. Under what circumstances can an employer be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by his/her employees? Employees and independent contractors To begin with, at first glance it seems easy to tell whether a person is an employee or not, but a distinction was made between employees, whose actions could give rise to vicarious liability, and independent contractors, whose actions do not. Over the years the courts have developed a number of different tests for deciding whether a particular individual is an employee or not. One of the most popular methods was to look at the degree of control
Tort law. In order to pursue a successful claim of negligence, The claimant must be able to prove the three elements.
Tort Law Assignment 1 Part A By Leanne Bromley In order to pursue a successful claim of negligence, The claimant must be able to prove the three elements. The claimant must prove the defendant owed them a duty of care as in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. The claimant must also prove the defendant breached that duty of care as in the case Nettleship v Western [1971 2 QB 691, Also the breach of that duty caused foreseeable damage as in the case Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. If the claimant is successful in proving all three element, they will be successful in proving negligence in court. The law of negligence was first established in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 in which Lord Atkins explained the neighbor principle and said, “the rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor; and the lawyers question, who is my neighbor? Receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoids acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Who then, in law is my neighbor? The persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to acts or omission which are called in question.” Lord Atkins neighbor
How courts determine causation
Word count (excluding footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, etc.): The aim of the following essay is to critically analyse how the courts determine causation in the tort of negligence. The essay will explain the meaning of causation and establish the difference between causation in fact and causation in law. The essay seeks to analyse the steps involved in establishing causation and identify crucial cases. Lastly, the essay will discuss its relevance in present times. To understand the concept of causation, it is important to understand the idea behind the tort of negligence. According to Percy Winfield, ‘negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant.’ 1 Therefore, if a claimant brings an action in negligence it is important to establish not only was there a duty of care and a breach of the duty, but it is also essential to establish that there has been some form of damage which is legally recognized. This is where the concept of causation arises. What is causation? Causation seeks to ‘establish a link between the claimant’s harm and the defendant so as to allocate responsibility for the harm and, to some extent, the risk.’2 ________________ To determine whether there has been some sort of legal damage, it is important to divide the two aspects of Causation- causation in fact and remoteness.
To what difficulties had the use of a 'but-for' test of factual causation in the law of tort given rise? Have the courts resolved these difficulties in a satisfactory manner?
Tort Essay 2 Neda Eslamian To what difficulties had the use of a 'but-for' test of factual causation in the law of tort given rise? Have the courts resolved these difficulties in a satisfactory manner? Introduction The purpose of the but-for test is to prove, as a matter of fact, that D's action was a cause of the damage. In order to establish this we must ask; 'but-for' D's negligence, would the damage have occurred anyway? The methodology behind it is the use of a balance of probabilities i.e. if the chance of the damage occurring anyway was over 50%, then there is no right to compensation. The simplicity of this test is not only an asset but also a fault. In certain situations complications arise. Often we are not so sure who is to blame for the damage, or whether the role that they played was a substantial factor in the resulting consequences. There are 3 problem areas that have caused extensive discussions, and in each individual area the court has dealt with the problems differently, sometimes producing a fair and satisfactory outcome, and at other times leaving the law completely inconsistent. These three problem areas are; ) The problem of 'loss of a chance' 2) The problem of 'what should have been done' versus 'what would have been done' 3) The problem of multiple causation (Each will be dealt with individually below). The test was first demonstrated in
tort law problem
The Law of Tort Law 202 Assignment One Gemma Bolt & Andrew Lambert Seminar Group Mondays 12.00 - 1.30 pm Gemma Bolt 053047962 Andrew Lambert 053047087 Number of words used 2,506 Table of cases . Byrne v Deane [1937] 2 ALL ER 204 2. Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331 3. Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 4. Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 6 M&W 105 5. Ratcliffe v Mc Connell [1999] 1 WLR 670 6. Salmon v Seafarers Restaurants Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1264 7. Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669 8. Simms v Leigh RFC Ltd [1969] 2 ALL ER 923 9. Tomlinson v Congleton District Council [2003] 3 ALL ER 1122 0. Wheat v E Lacon Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 1. White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 Table of statutes . Defamation Act 1952 Elizabeth II HMSO 2. Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Elizabeth II HMSO 3. Occupiers Liability Act 1984 Elizabeth II HMSO Question One Bill, Sally, Felicity and Andrew may be able to commence legal proceedings for defamation. Defamation is 'the publication of a statement which reflects on a person's reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him'1. It is for the claimant to prove, that the statements are defamatory, they refer to the claimant and have been published2. For a statement to be defamatory it must be untrue, damage the person's
