Tort Law

Chris Turner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317974925
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Droit
• Subtopic: Droit de la responsabilité délictuelle

Key Facts Key Cases: Tort Law will ensure you grasp the main concepts of your Tort Law module with ease. This book explains the facts and associated case law for:

• 
  
  

• The torts of negligence, occupiers' liability and nuisance

• 
  
  

• Strict liability torts

• 
  
  

• The torts of trespass to land and trespass to the person

• 
  
  

• Torts involving goods

• 
  
  

• Torts affecting reputation

• 
  
  

• Employment related torts

• 
  
  

• Available remedies

Key Facts Key Cases is the essential series for anyone studying law at LLB, postgraduate and conversion courses. The series provides the simplest and most effective way to absorb and retain all of the material essential for passing your exams. Each chapter includes:

• 
  
  

• diagrams at the start of chapters to summarise key points

• 
  
  

• structured headings and numbered points to allow for clear recall of the essential points

• 
  
  

• charts and tables to break down more complex information

Chapters are also supported by a Key Cases section which provides the simplest and most effective way to absorb and memorise essential cases needed for exam success.

• 
  
  

• Essential and leading cases are explained

• 
  
  

• The style, layout and explanations are user friendly

• 
  
  

• Cases are broken down into key components by use of a clear system of symbols for quick and easy visual recognition

1

The nature of tortious liability

1.1 General principles of tortious liability

1.1.1 The character of tort

1 The word tort comes from the French, meaning ‘wrong’.

2 Tort concerns civil wrongs leading to possible compensation.

3 A common definition is: ‘Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages’ (Winfield).

4 Character is dictated by historical background, so a better definition is: ‘subject to statutory intervention, a tort is a wrong which in former times would have been remediable by one of the actions for trespass (for direct wrongs) or trespass upon the case (for indirect wrongs)’ (Cooke) – so should refer to a law of torts.

5 The standard modern model is as follows: the defendant’s act or omission causes damage to the claimant through the fault of the defendant, and damage is of a type which attracts liability in law.

6 However, there are complications:

a) strict liability torts do not require faults to be proved;

b) the type of damage caused may not give rise to liability (damnum sine injuria);

c) some conduct results in liability even without damage (injuria sine damno).

1.1.2 The aims of tort

1 There are two principal objectives in tort: deterrence and compensation.

a) Deterrence operates more on a market than an individual basis – the idea is to reduce the cost of accidents.

b) Compensation – the purpose of damages is to put the victim in the same position as if tort did not occur (reliance loss).

2 A key question is whether the system adequately compensates victims.

3 Points to consider:

only those who can show fault can be compensated;

both Pearson and Woolf reports identified delay and costs as major drawbacks;

reductions in value of compensation: pressure is on the claimant to settle – usually for two-thirds to three-quarters;

unpredictability;

no point suing ‘a man of straw’ – exceptions are third party insurance under Road Traffic Acts; vicarious liability; Employer’s Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969;

the system discourages claims: only one in ten potential personal injury claims are pursued;

the effect of the Woolf reforms on encouraging or deterring claims.

1.1.3 Alternative methods of compensation

1 These were considered as early as Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (Pearson Commission) 1978.

2 The Commission was the follow-up to the Thalidomide scandal.

3 The Commission did not recommend an end to the tort system in personal injury, but did recommend a partial no-fault system.

4 New Zealand operates such a scheme: benefits up to 80 per cent of earnings; limited lump sum amounts in permanent disability – 1982 reforms found no one in favour of returning to fault system.

5 Public insurance is one alternative – Pearson showed that the cost of obtaining tort compensation is much higher than the cost of administering the Social Security system.

6 Private insurance – too expensive for many people, and not within British culture.

7 Compensation from public schemes, e.g. Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, Motor Insurance Bureau, if applicable.

1.1.4 The interests the law of torts prot...