Tort An outline understanding of tort liability based on fault. Negligence An understanding of: duty of care; breach of duty of care; damage (limited to physical injury and damage to property); res ipsa loquitur

What is tort? Tort = wrong (Fr.) A tort happens to you if someone fails in a duty towards you or infringes your right. Can be against your person, your property or your reputation. Liability is based on fault. This is usually in the form of negligence Problem: you could receive terrible injuries but not be able to prove it’s someone’s fault

Tort v crime Criminal : a wrong against society (its purpose is to punish.) Tort : a wrong against an individual (its purpose is to compensate). NB Some actions can be both a crime and a tort.

Negligence There is a “duty of care” There is a breach of that duty The breach causes damage

Duty of care: The most famous case... Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) “ You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour ”. A neighbour is anyone who you ought to “have in mind” before you act (because they might be affected by your action)..

Caparo v Dickman (1990) Who is my neighbour? Was the damage foreseeable? Is there a “proximate” relationship? Is it just and reasonable to impose a duty?

You decide: “neighbour” or not? (i.e. Was there a duty of care?) Bourhill v Young (1943) Not reasonably foreseeable

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire Was there a duty of care? Relationship between police and victim not close/proximate Also, not “fair, just and reasonable” – could lead to worse policing

A duty, but was there a breach? Bolton v Stone (1951): When a cricket ball hit the claimant he had to prove a breach of care – there was a 17ft high fence and a ball had got over it 6 times in 35 years.

Was there a breach? Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

What standard of care is required to avoid a breach? Reasonable – see Paris v SBC For professionals, the test in Bolam (a medical case)“the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man”

Did the breach cause the damage? Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington HMC (1968)

If the damage is too remote... Wagon Mound (1961) If you spill oil into a harbour and, two days later, sparks from some welding ignites the oil and burns down a building, it is not something you could have reasonably foreseen.

Thin skull rule Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Man burnt on lip with molten metal and this triggered cancer

Res ipsa loquitur “the thing speaks for itself” Scott v London & St. Katherine Docks (1865) If the defendant was in control of the situation and it looks like the injury was caused by negligence......then it’s up to the defendant to prove it wasn’t.