Law of Torts

Download Law of Torts

Post on 23-Nov-2014

927 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<p>LAW OF TORTSAMIRAH BT SALMAN BEQ090003</p> <p>OUTLINE - TRESPASSINTRODUCTION TRESSPASS TO LAND Elements of trespassMental state of defendant: Basely V. Clarkson Interference: Gregory V. Piper</p> <p>POSSESSION TRESPASS TO RELATION INTERFERENCE</p> <p>OUTLINE - TRESPASSTRESPASS TO HIGHWAY DPP</p> <p>V. Jones</p> <p>TRESPASS TO SUBSOIL TRESPASS TO AIRSPACE Pickering</p> <p>V. Rudd V. Goodman V. British Airport Authority</p> <p>CONTINUING TRESPASS Konskier</p> <p>TRESPASS AB INITIO Cinnamond</p> <p>OUTLINE NEGLIGENCE (Duty of Care)INTRODUCTION </p> <p>Negligence Duty of Care NEIGHBOURHOOD PRINCIPLEDonoghue V. Stevenson Home Office V. Dorsett Yacht Peabody Donation V. Lindsay Parkinson Sathu V. Hawthornden Rubber Estate Co. Ltd Sivakumaran V. Yu Pan</p> <p>NEIGHBOURHOOD TEST</p> <p>REVISED TEST Anns</p> <p>V. Merton London BC Ind. V. Dickman</p> <p>CURRENT TEST Caparo</p> <p>OUTLINE NEGLIGENCE (Breach of Duty)Reasonable Man Test Glasgow</p> <p>V. Muir</p> <p>Level of Intelligence Professional Defendant Phillips</p> <p>V. Whitely Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management</p> <p>INTRODUCTION Tort comes from Latin word tortus, which means wrung. So TORT means WRONG. It is a wrongful act not authorized by law.</p> <p>TRESPASS TO LAND Definition: An unjustifiable/unreasonable interference with anothers possession of land. An intentional tort &amp; committed against someone who owns the land. Actionable per se (without proving the damage) Irregardless if landlord can prove damage /not</p> <p>ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS Mental state of defendant Even if defendant didnt intent to do the alleged act/without intention, there must be a voluntary act in entering the plaintiffs land. CASE: BASELY V. CLARKSON FACTS: Defendant accidentally mowed plaintiffs land while mowing his own grass. HELD: The act of mowing his grass is a voluntary act, so he is liable. It is done</p> <p>ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS Interference </p> <p> Must be direct. CASE: GREGORY V. PIPER FACTS: Rubbish placed near plaintiffs land rolled onto plaintiffs land upon drying. HELD: Defendant liable because the trespass is a foreseeable result from the defendants act.</p> <p>POSSESSION Varies according to nature of property. No consistent theory of possession. Example: A person staying in a hotel room does not own the room. Example: A person who has been granted to grow crops in someone elses land has enough possession to sue for trespass. CASE: MONSANTO V. TILLY</p> <p> Signifies the lawful right to retain possession when someone has it. Signifies the lawful right to acquire possession when one has not. When someone is entitled an immediate right to possession, when he enters land and acquire possession, he is in possession. He can sue for trespass when hes out of possession. Claim for damages: Mesne profit</p> <p>TRESPASS BY RELATION IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO POSSESSION</p> <p>INTERFERENCE Interference to land is sufficient to amount to trespass. Ways of interference Unauthorized walking on someones land Throwing something on someones land Discharging water into the flowing watercourse Letting your cattle stray from your land</p> <p> Trespasser A person extend permission to enter anothers land A person remains in your land after it expires</p> <p> Trespass to person Injury must be direct &amp; immediate Not a trespass if damage is indirect But theres a remedy for nuisance Example: A plant tree on Bs land Trespass</p> <p>TRESPASS TO HIGHWAY Not a trespass if someone use highway to travel from one place to another. Rights of a highway user is confined to use of passage. CASE: DPP V. JONES FACTS: There was an assembly on highway. HELD: By majority of HOL that it is not a trespass to hold a peaceful assembly on highway, so long as it is reasonable and doesnt cause any obstruction.</p> <p>TRESPASS TO SUBSOIL Trespass to subsoil is just as much a trespass as trespass to surface of land. Surface and soil may be owned by different people. Example: A possess surface and B possess land. If I walk on land Trespass to A If I dig vertical hole from surface Trespass to A &amp; B If I dig tunnel from my area to B </p> <p>TRESPASS TO AIRSPACE Classic view CASE: PICKERING V. RUDD HELD: Invasion of airspace above someones land is not a trespass unless theres actual contact with the land. Modern view Classic view is incorrect. If a signboard erected on defendants land projects onto plaintiffs land, it is a trespass.</p> <p>CONTINUING TRESPASS Definition: Failure to remove object unlawfully placed on plaintiffs land. CASE: KONSKIER V. GOODMAN FACT: Contractor fail to remove rubbish after completion of work. He dump it on plaintiffs property and left it there after his license expires. HELD: There was a continuing trespass through negligence. But its not a trespass if defendant merely omit to restore the same condition. Example: Defendant fail to fill pit. Hes liable for trespass for digging, but not liable for continuing trespass in allowing it to be there. But hes liable for negligence if</p> <p>TRESPASS AB INITIO You become a trespasser ab initio if you abuse your authority as justified by law. Your act is unlawful from the very beginning. Doctrine only applies if the authority is of the law and if the act is positive, not a mere omission. CASE: CINNAMOND V. BRITISH AIRPORT AUTHORITY FACT: 6 taxi drivers were prosecuted by the airport authority for touting passengers and loitering at airport. HELD: Taxi drivers had abused their authority given by law and they were trespassers</p> <p>NEGLIGENCE (Duty of Care) INTRODUCTION Negligence: When someone who owes you a duty of care failed to act according to a reasonable standard of care &amp; this has caused you injury. Duty of care: If your actions are reasonably likely to affect someone else, then you owe them a DOC. You have to act according to a reasonable standard of care to ensure that those people are not harmed or injured as a result of the things you do. If not then you have</p> <p>NEIGHBOURHOOD TEST A test to discover the existence of DOC &amp; to know if defendant is liable for negligence/not. An objective test. Court will ask hypothetical question. Would a reasonable man in the same circumstance as defendant foresee that his act will affect the plaintiff? If NO- Plaintiff not a neighbour of defendant, no DOC If YES- Plaintiff neighbour of defendant, yes DOC</p> <p> Example: A run over B, and C (wife of B) suffer shock at hospital. Eventho C is not at all close at the accident, but she is deemed to be close because C is a person who a reasonable man foresee that might be affected from As conduct. Dont need to apply the test in all cases to determine DOC cuz court have recognised the existence of DOC. Example: A teacher owes DOC to a student.</p> <p> No DOC</p> <p>CASE: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON FACTS: May McAllister bought a ginger beer drink bottle and entertained her friend, Ms. Donoghue. When she refilled the glass, out came decomposed remains of a snail. Plaintiff suffered shock and was severely ill. So she sued the manufacturer claiming that he had a duty in his business to prevent the snails from entering the bottle and to carefully inspect the bottle before filling it with ginger beer. ISSUE: Whether defendant owe a DOC to plaintiff? HELD: Plaintiff is a neighbour to defendant. Lord Atkin ruled that you are to love your neighbour, you must not injure your neighbour and you have to avoid a reasonable foresee act that might injure your neighbour.</p> <p>CASE: HOME OFFICE V. DORSETT YACHT FACTS: 7 borstal trainers escape from an island due to negligence from borstal officers. The boys caused damage to some yachts and the owner of the yachts sue the Home Office ISSUE: Whether the H/O owe a DOC to owner of yacht? HELD: H/O was liable because they owe a DOC to plaintiff.</p> <p>CASE: PEABODY DONATION V. LINDSAY PARKINSON FACTS: Drainage system of a building was defective. LA in charge of overseeing the construction was found to be aware of the fact that the approved plans didnt adhere to the completed drainage system. So plaintiff sue the LA claiming that they had breached their duty by not ensuring that approved plans were adhered to. ISSUE: Whether the LA owe a DOC to</p> <p>CASE: SATHU V. HAWTHORNDEN RUBBER ESTATE FACTS: Plaintiffs cattle died while grazing on defendants estate which was sprayed with sodium arsenide earlier on. Plaintiff claim defendant breached his duty under the D V. S principle. ISSUE: Whether defendant owe plaintiff DOC? HELD: Defendant does not owe DOC to plaintiff and thus, is not liable. In order for defendant to be liable under the D V. S principle, it must be shown that he is aware that plaintiffs cattle is likely to stray on his estate. Since it is not reasonably foreseeable by the</p> <p>CASE: SIVAKUMARAN a/l SELVARAJ V. YU PAN FACTS: Plaintiffs husband was seriously injured after a collision with the defendants lorry. 9 months after, he committed suicide. She sue the defendant claiming it was their fault. ISSUE: Whether the defendant owe DOC to plaintiff? HELD: Defendant doesnt owe DOC to plaintiff. The suicide was not foreseeable and it wasnt a normal reaction to the accident. The claim is dismissed with costs.</p> <p>REVISED TESTANNS TEST CASE: ANNS V MERTON LONDON BC FACTS: Plaintiff bought a house from a developer in 1962. In 1970 cracks appeared in the walls of the house and the floor became uneven due to the foundation of the house. The plaintiff sue the builders and the local authority for negligence &amp; failure to properly inspect the foundation of the house. ISSUE: Whether there is sufficient</p> <p>neighbourhood relationship between the alleged and the person who suffered loss. HELD: Defendant is liable. Too</p> <p>CURRENT TESTCAPARO TEST CASE: CAPARO IND. V. DICKMAN Claimant has to show 3 things for a DOC to exist. 1.Foresight</p> <p> Is it reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff would be injured (foreseeability of damage)</p> <p>2.Proximity Is there sufficient proximity between parties?</p> <p>3.Fairness Is it fair, just &amp; reasonable to impose</p> <p>NEGLIGENCE (Breach of DOC)</p> <p>Breach: When defendant does something below his minimum standard of care. Negligence: The omission to do something which a reasonable would do OR doing something which a reasonable man wouldnt do.</p> <p>REASONABLE MAN TEST Test to show that the defendant owed a DOC &amp; that he breached it. Would a reasonable man in the same circumstance as defendant have acted as the defendant has done?</p> <p>LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE A reasonable man:1.Is not expected to be perfect. 2.Is a person of normal intelligence. 3.Deemed to possess a particular knowledge about a situation. 4.Does not take into account defendants personal characteristics. 5.Up to judge to determine course of action that would be taken by a reasonable man &amp; what should have been foreseen by defendant.</p> <p>3 Issues: Duty, breach &amp; damage CASE: GLASGOW V. MUIR FACTS: Defendant spilled some hot tea on children. ISSUE: Whether the defendant should have foreseen the injury would occur when he brought the container through the shops corridors? HELD: A reasonable man wouldnt have foreseen such accident in the circumstance.</p> <p>PROFESSIONAL DEFENDANT Bankers, doctors, accountants, lawyers architects, engineers are considered as professionals. They are bound to exercise the care and skill of ordinary competent practitioners in that professions. The standard of care required of them is that of a reasonable professional. Their standard of care is higher than that ordinary man on the street. </p> <p>CASE: PHILIPS V. WHITELEY FACTS: A jeweller employed a man to pierce Mrs. Philips. 2 weeks later she developed an infection that caused a swelling on her neck which requires surgery. ISSUE: Whether the defendant who pierced her ear have to show the care of a reasonable surgeon/ reasonable jeweller? HELD: A jeweller is not bound to take same precautions as a surgeon. Defendant had taken all reasonable precaution. Plaintiff was unable to prove that the jeweller has been negligent, so defendant was not liable.</p> <p>CASE: BOLAM V. FRIERN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT FACTS: Doctor treating plaintiff had given ECT (electro-convulsivetherapy). Plaintiff claimed damages alleging that defendant were negligent. ISSUE: Whether the doctor were negligent? HELD: Doctor not guilty of negligence as he has acted according to</p>

Recommended

View more >