148-456: Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law . The House of Lords overruled
296-416: A Criminal Code , though such an enactment has been often recommended and attempted (see English Criminal Code ). Many criminal offences are common law offences rather being specified in legislation. In 1980, a Committee of JUSTICE said that, upon conducting a search, they found over 7,200 offences, and that they thought that there were probably many more. They said that "it is now impossible to ascertain
444-399: A homeless person and set fire to him. They were cleared of murder, but were still convicted of manslaughter , since that is a crime of basic intent. Of course, it can well be the case that someone is not drunk enough to support any intoxication defence at all. On the other hand, if someone becomes involuntarily intoxicated, because his drink is laced or spiked, then the question is whether
592-409: A judge without a jury . Following Roman law , the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence
740-474: A mattress . He failed to take action, and after the building had burned down, he was convicted of arson . He failed to correct the dangerous situation he created, as he was duty bound to do. In many countries in Europe and North America , Good Samaritan laws also exist, which criminalize failure to help someone in distress (e.g. a drowning child). On the other hand, it was held in the U.K. that switching off
888-460: A mens rea coincide. For instance, in R v Church , For instance, Mr. Church had a fight with a woman which rendered her unconscious. He attempted to revive her, but gave up, believing her to be dead. He threw her, still alive, in a nearby river, where she drowned . The court held that Mr. Church was not guilty of murder (because he did not ever desire to kill her), but was guilty of manslaughter . The "chain of events", his act of throwing her into
1036-402: A playful slap on the head, but Q suffers from a rare cranial condition and dies, then P can be guilty of manslaughter regardless of how unlucky he is to have bickered with Q. This is known as the thin skull rule . Between the defendant's acts and the victim's harm, the chain of causation must be unbroken. It could be broken by the intervening act ( novus actus interveniens ) of a third party,
1184-436: A "reasonable man" (the objective test). In some cases where the defendant was in a special profession, e.g. being a doctor, the court will ask what standard of care a "reasonable doctor" or the like might have done. Allowance is usually made for the defendants age and a lower standard of a "reasonable child of a certain age" is applied to children. On the other hand, no allowance is made for other personal circumstances, such as
1332-409: A bank to repay it, because that choice implies free will. Intoxication is irrelevant to duress, but one cannot also say one is mistaken about duress, when intoxicated. Then a number of cases turn on the choice to join a gang, and inevitably do bad things. The rule is that where one is aware of the gang's nature and puts himself in a position where he could be threatened, duress is not a defence - joining
1480-399: A building site, should have some compensation for their unfortunate curiosity. The tort of nuisance allows a claimant (formerly plaintiff) to sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land. A good example of this is in the case of Jones v Powell (1629). A brewery made stinking vapours waft to neighbours' property, damaging his papers. Because he was a landowner,
1628-399: A car accident that was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The claimant found out about the accident an hour later and, when she got to the hospital two hours later, one child had already died. She saw her husband and children suffering and suffered shock, depression and a change of personality. The court established a spectrum of proximity; a pedestrian should be able to withstand seeing
SECTION 10
#17327658402561776-440: A clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law , that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment , tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations . In English law, torts like other civil cases are generally tried in front
1924-503: A company's accountability to a broader public and the conscientiousness of its behaviour must rely also, in great measure, on its governance. Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 3 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 list numerous statutory offences of assisting, encouraging, inciting, attempting or conspiring at the commission of various crimes. Motor vehicle document offences: The defences which are available to any given offence depend on
2072-523: A defence to crimes of specific intent (such as murder , wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, theft , robbery and burglary ). But automatism is no defence to other crimes (i.e. of basic intent , e.g. manslaughter , assault and battery ) if the defendant was reckless in becoming automatismic or it happens through alcohol or illegal drugs . Only where the defendant does not know his actions will lead to an automatismic state where he could harm something can self-induced automatism be
2220-491: A defence to these crimes. For example, in R v Hardie Mr Hardie took his girlfriend's Valium , because she had just kicked him out and he was depressed . She encouraged him to take them, to make him feel better. But he got angry and set fire to the wardrobe . It was held that he should not be convicted of arson because he expected the Valium to calm him down, and this was its normal effect. Technically, intoxication
2368-455: A dream like state as a result of post traumatic stress, or even be "attacked by a swarm of bees" and go into an automatic spell. However to be classed as an "automaton" means there must have been a total destruction of voluntary control, which does not include a partial loss of consciousness as the result of driving for too long. Automatism can also be self-induced, particularly by taking medical treatment. Self-induced automatism can always be
2516-478: A duty of care is usually broken up into a three-step test. The first case to establish a general duty of care was Donoghue v Stevenson . Famously, Mrs Donoghue claimed compensation for illness after she consumed a ginger beer containing a decomposed snail in a public house in Paisley , Scotland . The bottle was opaque so neither Mrs Donoghue nor the shopkeeper could see a snail, and at the time she could not sue
2664-418: A duty of care will arise. ...in my judgment, the bank in the present case, by the words which they employed, effectively disclaimed any assumption of a duty of care. They stated that they only responded to the inquiry on the basis that their reply was without responsibility. If the inquirers chose to receive and act upon the reply they cannot disregard the definite terms upon which it was given. They cannot accept
2812-433: A duty of care. On the basis of the three exclusion criteria mentioned above, all claims were ruled out. While negligence actions set a general groundwork, many further fields of tort have developed their own identity or, where judicial decision-making was seen as insufficient by Parliament, through statutory reform. Major statutory torts concern food safety, health and safety and environmental law. For example, liability under
2960-518: A fixed penalty or magistrate's courts penalty. Occupiers' Liability is currently governed by the two Occupier's Liability Acts, 1957 and 1984 . Under these rules, an occupier, such as a shopkeeper, a home owner or a public authority, who invites others onto their land, or has trespassers, owes a minimum duty of care for people's safety. One early case was Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909] AC 229, in which Lord Macnaughton felt that children who were hurt whilst looking for berries on
3108-553: A gang that carries out armed robberies probably precludes any duress defence but joining a gang that is not violent at the time of joining may not. Whilst a duress defence relates to the situation where a person commits an offense to avoid death or serious injury to himself or another when threatened by a third party, the defence of necessity related to the situation where a person commits an offense to avoid harm which would ensue from circumstances in which he/she or another are placed. Duress operates as an excuse but necessity operates as
SECTION 20
#17327658402563256-427: A gas meter from a wall to get the money inside, and knows this will let flammable gas escape into a neighbor's house, he could be liable for poisoning. This is called "subjective recklessness", though in some jurisdictions "objective recklessness" qualifies as the requisite criminal intent, so that if someone ought to have recognized a risk and nevertheless proceeded, he may be held criminally liable. A novel aspect of
3404-399: A group of accountants (Dickman) and was intended for shareholders, not outsiders. Once Caparo owned the company it found that the finances were in fact pretty shoddy, and so it sued the accountants for being negligent in its audit preparation. The House of Lords found against Caparo and established the current threefold test. Although it was "reasonably foreseeable" that outsiders might learn of
3552-411: A guilty mind, which is why the term " strict liability " is used. Actus reus is Latin for "guilty act" and is the physical element of committing a crime. It is usually the application or threat of unlawful force, though exceptionally an omission or failure to act can result in liability. Simple examples might be A hitting B with a stick, or X pushing Y down a water well . These are guilty acts and
3700-472: A hammer). Diabetes may cause temporary "insanity" and even sleep walking has been deemed "insane". "Not knowing the nature or wrongness of an act" is the final threshold which confirms insanity as related to the act in question. In R v Windle a man helped his wife commit suicide by giving her a hundred aspirin . He was in fact mentally ill, but as he recognized what he did and that it was wrong by saying to police "I suppose they will hang me for this", he
3848-407: A justification, rendering the defendant's conduct lawful. Necessity is a defence that argues "I desperately needed to do X, because consequence Y would have been really bad." Logically, this is identical to the concept of "duress of circumstance", where the situation rather than a person is the threat. The common elements are (1) an act is done to prevent a greater evil (2) the evil must be directed to
3996-406: A lady walk from a supermarket without paying for a jar of mincemeat. A "disease of the mind" includes not just brain diseases, but any impairment "permanent or transient and intermittent" so long as it is not externally caused (e.g. by drugs) and it has some effect on one's mind. So epilepsy can count, as can an artery problem causing temporary loss of consciousness (and a man to attack his wife with
4144-479: A landowner's enjoyment of his property. A subset of nuisance is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher , which originates in a case where a dam burst into a coal mine shaft. In such cases, a dangerous escape of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals, gives rise to a strict liability claim. This is subject only to a remoteness cap, familiar from negligence when the event is unusual and unpredictable. This
4292-693: A large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage , financial services and corporations , create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act. Defences exist to crimes. A person who is accused may in certain circumstances plead they are insane and did not understand what they were doing, that they were not in control of their bodies, they were intoxicated , mistaken about what they were doing, acted in self defence , acted under duress or out of necessity, or were provoked . These are issues to be raised at trial , for which there are detailed rules of evidence and procedure to be followed. England and Wales does not have
4440-702: A means of recovery. The word "vicarious" derives from the Latin for 'change' or 'alternation' and the old Latin for the doctrine is respondeat superior . To establish vicarious liability, the courts must find first that there exists a relationship of employee and employer. The torts of independent contractors generally do not impose vicarious liability on employers; however, Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd demonstrates this principle does not apply where particularly hazardous activities are contracted for, or
4588-443: A non-delegable duty is owed. Secondly, the tort must have been committed 'in the course of employment'; or while an employee is going about the business of their employer. A preferred test of the courts for connecting torts to the course of employment was formulated by John William Salmond , which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd - Misplaced Pages Continue
4736-437: A non-delegable duty of care for all employees. Lord Wright held there were "fundamental obligations of a contract of employment... for which employers are absolutely responsible". The second old restriction was that, until 1891, volenti non fit injuria meant workers were assumed to voluntarily accept the dangers of their work by agreeing to their contracts of employment. Only if an employee callously ignores clear directions of
4884-519: A party to the killing." Loss of control may be pleaded under sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . Infanticide now operates as a defence to both murder and manslaughter. See the Infanticide Act 1938 as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . Insanity is a deranged state of mind, and consequently no defence to strict liability crimes, where mens rea not is
5032-508: A pecuniary advantage by deception under the Theft Act 1968 section 16. After being struck in the head by a defective gangplank he suffered worse fits than before, but the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held his illegal act precluded any compensation. The common law of tort also remains particularly relevant for the type of liability an employer has where there is scientific uncertainty about
5180-409: A person, for example if a farmer sets fire to a field, and someone's home is subsequently damaged. Trespass by the case did, however, provide a legal writ for injury caused indirectly by an action. Defamation means tarnishing the reputation of someone. It is divided into two parts, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel is defaming somebody through print (or broadcasting). Both share
5328-512: A reply given with a stipulation and then reject the stipulation. Furthermore, within accepted principles... the words employed were apt to exclude any liability for negligence. Effectively, the House of Lords had chosen to approve the dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Denning in Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164. In later years there has been a steady trend towards regarding
5476-446: A report from Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners Ltd., who replied in a letter that was headed, "without responsibility on the part of this bank" ...Easipower is, "considered good for its ordinary business engagements". The letter was sent for free. Easipower soon went into liquidation, and Hedley Byrne lost £17,000 (equivalent to 470,000 in 2023) on contracts. Hedley Byrne sued Heller & Partners for negligence, claiming that
5624-530: A requirement. An old case which lays down typical rules on insanity is M'Naghten's case where a man suffering extreme paranoia believed the Tory party of the United Kingdom , were persecuting him. He wanted to shoot and kill Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel , but got Peel's secretary in the back instead. Mr M'Naghten was found to be insane, and instead of prison, put in a mental hospital. The case produced
5772-423: A result of the imprisonment and loss of reputation. (Note that solicitors have a pre-existing duty of care towards their clients.) The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police established a three factors for a secondary victim to succeed: Case law where this test has been applied includes McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] AC 410, in which the husband and children of the claimant were involved in
5920-459: A second story window to escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have been sustained "but for" the property owner's intervention. However, a trespasser may be able to recover damages due to the unsafe state of the premises (see Occupiers' Liability below). Historically, English courts have been reluctant to allow claims for nervous shock. Early claims involved ladies who suffered what
6068-419: A stadium. The event was televised and broadcast on radio. In Alcock , claims for damages for psychiatric illness were brought by fifteen relatives of the victims of the tragedy; some of them had been present at the match - but not in the area where the disaster occurred - and others had seen it on television or heard it on the radio. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police denied that the claimants were owed
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd - Misplaced Pages Continue
6216-438: A trespasser. This is a defence against the tort of battery. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an injunction . This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as restraining the continuance or threat of harm. For people who have died as a result of another person's tort, the damages that their estate or their families may gain
6364-416: A type of damage is foreseeable, however, the manner in which it occurred – however remote – is of no concern to the courts. Finding a successful defence absolves the defendant from full or partial liability for damages, which makes them valuable commodities in the court. There are three main defences to tortious liability; to argue the claimant voluntarily undertook the risk of his harm, that he contributed to
6512-401: A war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade." Nowadays, this would be considered a criminal cartel. In labour law the most notable case is Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants . The House of Lords thought that unions should be liable in tort for helping workers to go on strike for better pay and conditions, but it riled workers so much that it led to
6660-435: Is a foreseeable event and regular spectators are assumed to accept that risk of injury when buying a ticket. A slightly more limited defence may arise where the defendant has been given a warning, whether expressly to the plaintiff/claimant or by a public notice, sign or otherwise, that there is a danger of injury. The extent to which defendants can rely on notices to exclude or limit liability varies from country to country. This
6808-436: Is also clear that acts by directors become acts of the company, as they are "the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation". But despite strict liability in tort, civil remedies are in some instances insufficient to provide a deterrent to a company pursuing business practices that could seriously injure the life, health and environment of other people. Even with additional regulation by government bodies, such as
6956-410: Is an issue of policy as to whether defendants should not only warn of a known danger, but also take active steps to fence the site and take other reasonable precautions to prevent the known danger from befalling those foreseen to be at risk. Contributory negligence is a mitigatory defence, whereby a claimant's damages are reduced in accordance with the percentage of contribution made by the claimant to
7104-485: Is an offence. Private land to which the public have a reasonable right of access (for example, a supermarket car park during opening hours) is considered to be included within the requirements of the Act. Police may seize vehicles that do not appear to have necessary insurance in place. Drivers caught driving without insurance for a vehicle they own are liable to be prosecuted by the police and, upon conviction, will receive either
7252-479: Is assessed at 100%, as in Jayes v IMI Kynoch . Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is the illegality defence, the Latin for "no right of action arises from a despicable cause". If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's liability. Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner and sustains injury when jumping from
7400-433: Is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice , and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police , the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services , though the main focus of criminal law concerns
7548-410: Is enough, and a variety of supplementary tests have been developed (e.g. the material contribution to risk and material damage to damage tests), often to deal specifically with a particular area of liability ( asbestos cases, for instance). After a causal link has been properly established, the courts may still deny compensation if the harm was a very remote consequence of the initial wrong. So long as
SECTION 50
#17327658402567696-551: Is found in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 . This creates a criminal offence for manslaughter , meaning a penal fine of up to 10 per cent of turnover against companies whose managers conduct business in a grossly negligent fashion, resulting in deaths. Without lifting the veil there remains, however, no personal liability for directors or employees acting in the course of employment, for corporate manslaughter or otherwise. The quality of
7844-462: Is fraud. However, until the mid-20th century there were a series of major limitations. First, until 1937, if an employee was injured by a co-worker, the doctrine of common employment , the employer could only be liable if it was shown they were personally liable by carelessness in selecting staff. The House of Lords changed this in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English , holding an employer had
7992-526: Is governed by the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (replacing the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 ). Under s.1A the spouse or dependent of a victim may receive £11,800 in bereavement damages. As a remedy to tort, injunctions are most commonly used in cases of Nuisance . The court may impose an injunction on a tortfeasor, such as in Sturges v Bridgman . This legally obliges the tortfeasor to stop or reduce
8140-779: Is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, providing a wide scope of protection, especially since Donoghue v Stevenson . For liability under negligence, a duty of care must be established owed to a group of persons to which the victim belongs, a nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled. Liability for negligence arises when one person breaches a duty of care owed to another. The main elements of negligence are: In some situations, defences will be available to negligence. Special rules, and considerable bodies of case law have developed around four further particular fields in negligence: for psychiatric injury, economic loss, for public bodies, and when concerning omissions and third parties. The establishment of
8288-414: Is involved the tendency has been to apply principles analogous to those stated by Lord Atkin ([as in] Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465). In such normal practices of reliance, in the consumer setting, the court extends Hedley Byrne liability and overrides many disclaimers. English tort law English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety,
8436-522: Is not a defence, but negates the mens rea for specific intent offenses (e.g. it commutes a murder sentence to manslaughter). In other words, a defendant may have been so drunk, or drugged, that he was incapable of forming the criminal intention required. Voluntary intoxication is considered reckless , a state of basic intent, which means one cannot have one's sentence reduced for crimes of basic intent (e.g. manslaughter, assault, etc.). So for instance, in R v Sheehan and Moore two people threw petrol on
8584-505: Is not. Using a sledgehammer to fend off an "attacker" after 20 pints of beer is disproportionate. In all instances one may only use reasonable, and not excessive, force in self defence . In R v Clegg a soldier in Northern Ireland shouted at a car approaching a checkpoint to halt. When it did not, Mr Clegg fired three shots, killing a woman. She was hit in the back, and Mr Clegg was sentenced for murder because by then
8732-410: Is notoriously difficult, and many outcomes are criticized for their harshness to the unwitting defendant and sidestepping of hospitals' or the victim's own liability. In R v Dear a stab victim reopened his wounds while in the hospital and died. But despite this suicidal behavior, the attacker was still held fully responsible for murder. Mens rea is another Latin phrase, meaning "guilty mind". It
8880-484: Is the mental element of committing a crime and establishes the element of intent. Together with an actus reus , mens rea forms the bedrock of criminal law, although strict liability offenses have encroached on this notion. A guilty mind means intending to do that which harms someone. Intention under criminal law is separate from a person's motive . R v Mohan [1975] 2 All ER 193, intention defined as "a decision to bring about... [the actus reus ] no matter whether
9028-592: The Product Liability Directive in the European Union , where businesses making defective products that harm people must pay for any damage resulting. Liability for defective products is strict (see strict liability ) in most jurisdictions. The theory of risk spreading provides support for this approach. Since manufacturers are the 'cheapest cost avoiders', because they have a greater chance to seek out problems, it makes sense to give them
SECTION 60
#17327658402569176-564: The Compensation Act 2006 section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts. It has also been held in Chandler v Cape plc , in 2011, that even though a subsidiary company is the direct employer of a worker, a parent company will owe a duty of care. Thus shareholders may not be able to hide behind the corporate veil to escape their obligations for the health and safety of the workforce. Many serious accidents in practice take place on
9324-588: The Health and Safety Executive or the Environment Agency , companies may still have a collective incentive to ignore the rules in the knowledge that the costs and likelihood of enforcement is weaker than potential profits. Criminal sanctions remain problematic, for instance if a company director had no intention to harm anyone, no mens rea , and managers in the corporate hierarchy had systems to prevent employees committing offences. One step toward reform
9472-593: The King or Queen , and the v stands for "versus". There is a Sentencing Council . This power is now created by section 163 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 . It was formerly created by each of the following provisions in turn: A general power of Crown Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment on conviction on indictment is created by section 77 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 It
9620-535: The Norfolk farmer, even if robbers had trespassed on his property . In that case, Mr Martin was found to have diminished responsibility for his actions, because he was mentally ill. One who is "under duress" is forced into something. Duress can be a defence for all crimes, except murder , attempted murder , being an accessory to murder and treason involving the death of the Sovereign. In R v Howe it
9768-562: The Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, or liability imposed on utility (gas and electricity) companies to ensure the safety of their products, all of which are strict liability. While a statute has said nothing specific, a tortious duty may have arisen. This will be a question of statutory interpretation (e.g. Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923). In consumer protection, with
9916-412: The floodgates of litigation . The third element, whether liability would be "fair, just and reasonable", was an extra hurdle added as a catch-all discretionary measure for the judiciary to block further claims. Once a duty of care has been established, it must be shown that a duty has been breached. The question the courts ask is whether the behaviour exhibited by the defendant fell below the threshold of
10064-462: The rules that a person is presumed to be sane and responsible, unless it is shown that (1) he was laboring under such a defect of reason (2) from disease of the mind (3) as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. These elements must be proven present on the balance of probabilities . "Defect of reason" means much more than, for instance, absent mindedness making
10212-593: The "course of employment" whenever their actions have a "close connection" to the job, and even if it breaks an employer's rules. Only if an employee is on a "frolic of his own", and the employer cannot be said to have placed him in a position to cause harm, will the employer have a defence. Under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 , employers must take out insurance for all injury costs, and insurance companies are precluded by law and practice from suing their employees to recover costs unless there
10360-405: The 19th century English judge , Lord Coleridge CJ wrote, It would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty; but every legal duty is founded on a moral obligation. Furthermore, one can become bound by a duty to take reasonable steps to correct a dangerous situation that one creates. In R v Miller a squatter flicked away a still lit cigarette , which landed on
10508-553: The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005), not under the common law doctrine of necessity. But more recently, duress of circumstance and necessity have been recognized and used by courts. In a leading case, Re A (Conjoined Twins) , conjoined twins were born, one reliant on the other for her heart and lungs. Unless they were separated, both would die, but if separated,
10656-501: The Law of Tort (1951), Glanville Williams saw four possible bases on which different torts rested: appeasement, justice, deterrence and compensation. From the late 1950s a group of legally oriented economists and economically oriented lawyers emphasised incentives and deterrence, and identified the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of risk . They are often described as the law and economics movement . Ronald Coase , one of
10804-717: The Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965. Since 1972, however, the UK has fallen under the cross-border-competition law regime of the European Community, which is found primarily in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty of the European Community . Companies that form a cartel or collude to disrupt competition ( Article 81 ) or to abuse a dominant position in the market – for instance through a monopoly ( Article 82 ) – face fines from
10952-752: The United Kingdom brought its legislation up to date, with the Competition Act 1998 , followed by the Enterprise Act 2002, a regime mirroring that of the European Union . The domestic enforcers are the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission . Vicarious liability refers to the idea of an employer being liable for torts committed by their employees, generally for policy reasons, and to ensure that victims have
11100-541: The accidents that occur in everyday life, but a family member of the victims will inevitably suffer greater emotional harm. Nonetheless, simply seeing the aftermath of the accident and not witnessing it is insufficient proximity. Similarly, seeing a video of the accident is insufficient. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992) HL was a test case in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, where 95 spectators were crushed to death and 400 injured in
11248-442: The accused desired that consequence of his act or not." In the special case of murder, the defendant must have appreciated (i.e. consciously recognized) that either death or serious bodily harm would be the result of his actions. In R v Woolin , a man in a fit of temper threw his three-month-old son onto a wall, causing head injuries from which he died. Although death was certain and the father should have realized, he did not in
11396-406: The activity causing the nuisance and its breach could, potentially, be a criminal offence. Injunctions may be used instead of or as well as the awarding of damages (above). Scholars and lawyers have identified conflicting aims for the law of tort, to some extent reflected in the different types of damages awarded by the courts: compensatory , aggravated and punitive or exemplary. In The Aims of
11544-436: The amount the employee contributed to their own injury. The fourth defence available to employers, which still exists, is ex turpi causa non oritur actio , that if the employee was engaged in any illegal activity they may not claim compensation for injuries. In Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd Mr Hewison concealed his epilepsy so that he could work offshore was technically guilty of illegally attempting to gain
11692-571: The assistance of another person who relies upon such skill, a duty of care will arise. The fact that the service is to be given by means of or by the instrumentality of words can make no difference. Furthermore, if in a sphere in which a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgment or his skill or upon his ability to make careful inquiry, a person takes it upon himself to give information or advice to, or allows his information or advice to be passed on to, another person who, as he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it, then
11840-539: The bar. She suffered shock which resulted in a miscarriage, and she sued the defendant. Mr White was held liable for causing nervous shock resulting in miscarriage, as the claimant reasonably believed herself to be in danger. Similarly, in Page v Smith [1995] AC 155, it was held that Mr Smith was liable for causing Mr Page psychiatric injury (chronic fatigue syndrome) after a car crash, because Mr Smith could have reasonably foreseen that Mr Page would suffer physical injury for
11988-500: The cabin boy close to death. Driven to extreme hunger, the crew killed and ate the cabin boy. The crew survived and were rescued, but put on trial for murder. They argued it was necessary to kill the cabin boy to preserve their own lives. Lord Coleridge , expressing immense disapproval, ruled, "to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it." The men were sentenced to hang , but public opinion, especially among seafarers,
12136-412: The car had passed, the force was excessive and there was no justification for self-defence. Another way of expressing the rule on defensive force is that it must be proportionate to the threat. For instance, as the notorious case of R v Martin shows, shooting a teenager in the back with a shotgun several times as he tries to escape is not a justified or proportionate exercise of self-defensive force for
12284-477: The carelessly prepared information, it was not the case that Caparo and Dickman were in a relationship of "proximity". This the court used as a term of art (note, this is different from the American use of the word) to say that it should not be the case that absolutely anyone who heard something said that was stupid and acted on it can sue. The court was reacting to its concern that to allow a claim here might open
12432-423: The case for a moratorium on legislation in the field of criminal justice was becoming stronger and stronger, governments seemed ever more determined to bring forward more legislation. The two basic elements of a crime are the act of doing that which is criminal, and the intention to carry it out. In Latin this is called the actus reus and the mens rea . In many crimes however, there is no necessity of showing
12580-409: The cause of an injury. In asbestos disease cases, a worker may have been employed with at a number of jobs where he was exposed to asbestos, but his injury cannot with certainty be traced to any one. Although he may be able to sue all of them, a number may have already gone insolvent. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd the House of Lords held that if any employer had materially increased
12728-490: The characteristics of the accused" would have responded in the same way. Examples of someone's characteristics that might be relevant are age, gender, pregnancy, physical disability, mental illness, sexuality, but not IQ. Using duress as a defence is limited in a number of ways. The accused must not have foregone some safe avenue of escape. The duress must have been an order to do something specific, so that one cannot be threatened with harm to repay money and then choose to rob
12876-464: The common law remains relevant for getting civil law compensation, and some limits on an employers' duties. Although the legislative provisions are not automatic, breach of a statutory duty is evidence that a civil law duty has been breached. Injured employees can generally claim for loss of income, and relatives or dependents recover small sums to reflect distress. In principle, employers are vicariously liable for all actions of people acting for them in
13024-423: The costs of expert opinion), psychiatric illness may be considered less serious than physical harm, the claimant is often a secondary victim, and finally, the courts argued that Parliament is better suited to dealing with this area. In the case of Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669, the claimant, Mrs Dulieu, was working in a public house. While she was serving, the defendant negligently drove his horse-drawn van into
13172-509: The courts referred to as a "malady of the mind". It was not expected for men to succumb to such problems. Today, courts are considerably less cautious but additional hurdles are still imposed upon claimants under certain circumstances. The following criteria must be satisfied: The courts had been cautious for a number of reasons, including the fear of floodgates (indeterminate liability), potential for fraud (brought on by people exaggerating their claims), problems of proof and diagnosis (including
13320-568: The courts, P. S. Atiyah has called the situation a "damages lottery". Consequently, in New Zealand , the government in the 1960s established a "no-fault" system of state compensation for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of command papers in the UK and much academic debate. English criminal law English criminal law concerns offences , their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales . Criminal conduct
13468-415: The crash. So liability for causing psychiatric injury depends on the foreseeability of the physical injury, as long as the psychiatric illness is medically recognised. In Young v Charles Church (Southern LTD)(1997) 39 BMLR 146, the claimant was a "participant" in the event (i.e. a primary victim – Evans & Hitchinson LJJ). He and Mr Cook were raising scaffolding poles in an area that was not secured by
13616-653: The creation of the British Labour Party and the Trade Disputes Act 1906 . Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, interference with a commercial contract or intimidation. Through a recent development in common law , beginning with Hedley Byrne v Heller in 1964, and further through the Misrepresentations Act 1967 , a victim of the tort of misrepresentation will be compensated for purely economic loss due to
13764-516: The defence of duress for someone charged with attempted murder, as the Lords could not see a reason why the defence should be open to an attempted murderer when it was not open to a murderer. In order to prove duress, it must be shown that the defendant was induced by threats of death or serious physical injury to either himself or his family that he reasonably believed would be carried out and that also that "a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing
13912-687: The defence of necessity (in the case of Tort law) was recognized and applied by the House of Lords to justify the informal detention and treatment of a mentally incompetent person who had become a danger to himself. This approach was subsequently found to be a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights in HL v United Kingdom . Subsequent to this decision, individuals who lack capacity must be deprived of their liberty in accordance with
14060-410: The defendant for his careless actions. This three-step scheme (also known as the tripartite or threefold test), however, did not crystallise until the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman . A company called Caparo took over another company by buying up a majority of its shares. It did this because it obtained word from a company audit that the target was financially sound. The audit was prepared by
14208-414: The defendant or someone for who he is responsible (3) the act must have been a proportionate response. But only necessity is a potential defence for murder . The defence of necessity was first tested in the 19th century English case of R v Dudley and Stephens . The Mignotte , sailing from Southampton to Sydney , sank. Three crew members and a cabin boy were stranded on a raft. They were starving and
14356-401: The defendant's conduct, the victim would not have been harmed. If more than one cause for harm exists (e.g. harm comes at the hands of more than one culprit) the rule states that to be responsible, one's actions must have "more than a slight or trifling link" to the harm. Another important rule of causation is that one must "take his victim as he finds him". For instance, if P gives his friend Q
14504-434: The defendant, if it is voluntary, and to offences that require proof of a specific intent . Duress and necessity operate as a defence to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and some forms of treason. Marital coercion is a defence to all crimes except treason and murder. There are two main partial defences that reduce murder to manslaughter. If one succeeds in being declared "not guilty by reason of insanity" then
14652-466: The different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon." Two cases demonstrated economic tort's affinity to competition and labour law. In Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. the plaintiff argued he had been driven from the Chinese tea market by competitors at a 'shipping conference' that had acted together to underprice his company. But this cartel was ruled lawful and "nothing more [than]
14800-582: The employees and with the power to codetermine health and safety matters with management. Spelling out the general duties found in HSWA 1974 , are a set of health and safety regulations , which must also stay in line with the European-wide harmonised requirements of the Health and Safety Directive . While the modern scheme of legislation and regulation engenders a comprehensive approach to enforcement and worker participation for health and safety matters,
14948-463: The employer will he be taken to have voluntarily assumed the risk, like in ICI Ltd v Shatwell where an experienced quarry shotfirer said he "could not be bothered" to wait 10 minutes before setting of a detonation, and blew up his brother. Third, even if a worker was slightly at fault, until 1945 such contributory negligence precluded the whole of the claim. Now the court will only reduce damages by
15096-486: The employers; the power lines were not switched off. Mr Cook touched a pole to the electric wiring and suffered a horrific death which caused Mr Young great distress. Even though he never feared for the loss of his own life, the court held that Mr Young was in the area of potential damage, so he was entitled to claim compensation. Finally, in McLoughlin v Jones [2002] QB 1312, there was an allegation that Mr McLoughlin
15244-486: The end of the nineteenth century were focused on the emasculation of trade unionism, until the reforming government of 1906 and the Trade Disputes Act 1906 . Aside from the common law, legislation was introduced shortly after the second world war to foot policy on a statutory basis, the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act 1948, followed later by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and
15392-497: The entire content of the criminal law at any given time". In 1989, the Law Commission said that a hypothetical criminal code that contained all existing criminal offences would be "impossibly bulky". In 2001, Peter Glazebrook said the criminal law was "voluminous, chaotic and contradictory". In March 2011, there were more than ten thousand offences excluding those created by by-laws . In 1999, P J Richardson said that as
15540-422: The existence of a contractual agreement. Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories, including tort(s) against the person, including assault , battery , false imprisonment , intentional infliction of emotional distress , and fraud . Property torts involve any intentional interference with
15688-405: The fact that the defendant was inexperienced in the task he set out to perform. He is expected to perform this task as a reasonably skilled and competent person. Causation is complex, and is usually discussed in two parts. Simple causation is a question of whether "but for" the action by the defendant harm would have resulted. There has been some deal of discussion over whether a contributory cause
15836-420: The harm, or that he engaged in illegal activity. Volenti non fit injuria is Latin for "to the willing, no injury is done". It operates when the claimant either expressly or implicitly consents to the risk of loss or damage. For example, if a regular spectator at an ice hockey match is injured when a player strikes the puck in the ordinary course of play, causing it to fly out of the rink and hit him or her, this
15984-505: The incentive to guard against product defects. One of the principal terms that accompanies the employment relationship is that the employer will provide a "safe system of work". As the industrial revolution developed, accidents from a hazardous working environment were a front line target for labour legislation, as a series of Factories Acts , from 1802, required minimum standards in workplace cleanliness, ventilation, fencing machinery, not to mention restrictions on child labour and limits to
16132-489: The information was given negligently and was misleading. Heller & Partners argued: The court found: A man cannot be said voluntarily to be undertaking a responsibility if at the very moment when he is said to be accepting it he declares that in fact he is not. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest wrote, I consider that it follows and that it should now be regarded as settled that if someone possessing special skill undertakes, quite irrespective of contract, to apply that skill for
16280-550: The law of negligence as depending on principle so that, when a new point emerges, one should ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognised principles apply to it. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 may be regarded as a milestone, and the well-known passage in Lord Atkin's speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think that
16428-499: The law on intention is that if one intends to harm somebody, it matters not who is actually harmed through the defendant's actions. The doctrine of transferred malice means, for instance, that if a man strikes another with his belt, but the belt bounces off and hits a nearby woman, the man is guilty of battery toward her. Malice can also be general, so that terrorists who plant bombs to kill random people are certainly guilty. The final requirement states that both an actus reus and
16576-430: The law should protect Mrs Donoghue by incremental analogy to previous cases. Nevertheless, Lord Atkin's speech was widely followed and was understood to contain three main points for establishing a duty of care. First, the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm; second, the claimant and the defendant being in a relationship of proximity; third, and more loosely, it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on
16724-436: The least desire that his son be killed or harmed. The English House of Lords sentenced him for manslaughter , but not murder. If a defendant has foresight of death or serious injury the jury may, but is not bound to, find the requisite mens rea . A lower threshold of mens rea is satisfied when a defendant recognizes that some act is dangerous but decides to commit it anyway. This is recklessness . For instance if C tears
16872-403: The life support of someone in a persistent vegetative state is an omission to act and not criminal. Since discontinuation of power is not a voluntary act, not grossly negligent, and is in the patient's best interests, no crime takes place. If someone's act is to have any consequence legally, it must have in some way caused a victim harm. The legal definition of "causation" is that " but for "
17020-404: The loss or damage suffered. Thus, in evaluating a collision between two vehicles, for example, if the wronged driver were not wearing a seatbelt, he would most likely be contributorily negligent. The court will then quantify the damages for the actual loss or damage sustained, and then reduce the amount paid to the claimant by 20%. Contributory negligence can also function as a full defence, when it
17168-589: The misconception of the terms of the contract . The English doctrine of restraint of trade was the catalyst for much of what is now called "competition laws" (or sometimes "antitrust"). These laws are a way of restraining those who would restrain "free competition" in the market economy, through monopolising production, setting up cartels, imposing unfair trading conditions, prices and so on. The English approach has traditionally been very flexible and liberal in its scope, but draconian when it did deem certain behaviour to be in restraint of trade. Many of these laws around
17316-538: The movement's principal proponents, submitted, in his article The Problem of Social Cost (1960), that the aim of tort should be to reflect as closely as possible liability where transaction costs should be minimised. Calls for reform of tort law come from diverse standpoints reflecting diverse theories of the objectives of the law. Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential claimants. Because of all people who have accidents, only some can find solvent defendants from which to recover damages in
17464-509: The neighbour sued in nuisance for this damage. But Whitelocke J, speaking for the Court of the King's Bench, said that because the water supply was contaminated, it was better that the neighbour's documents were risked. He said "it is better that they should be spoiled than that the common wealth stand in need of good liquor." Nowadays, interfering with neighbours' property is not looked upon so kindly. Nuisance deals with all kinds of things that spoil
17612-432: The normal mens rea was present at the incident's time. So where a blackmailer drugged a man's coffee , invited him to abuse a 15-year-old boy, and photographed it, the man was denied the defence of intoxication because the court simply did not believe that the man did not intend to commit the abuse. Sometimes intoxicated people make mistakes, as in R v Lipman where the defendant took LSD , thought his girlfriend
17760-410: The previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility". Hedley Byrne were a firm of advertising agents. A customer, Easipower Ltd, put in a large order. Hedley Byrne wanted to check their financial position, and creditworthiness , and so asked their bank, to get
17908-417: The prohibited act, it may not be necessary to show anything at all, even if the defendant would not normally be perceived to be at fault. England and Wales has strict liability offences, which criminalize behavior without the need to show a criminal mens rea. Most strict liability offences are created by statute, and often they are the result of ambiguous drafting. They are usually regulatory in nature, where
18056-478: The property rights of the claimant. Those commonly recognised include trespass to land , trespass to chattels , and conversion . Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law and modern antitrust or competition law . The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together
18204-529: The public-enforcement authorities, and in some cases they also face a cause of action in tort. A huge issue in the EU is whether to follow the U.S. approach of private damages actions to prevent anti-competitive conduct. In other words, the question is what should be seen as a private wrong (as was held in the vertical restraints case of Courage Ltd v Crehan ) and what should be seen as a public wrong where only public enforcers are competent to impose penalties. In 1998
18352-435: The reliant twin would die, the doctors therefore being liable to prosecution for murder. It was, however, held that in this special and incredibly sensitive situation, that the separation was necessary to save the first twin's life. In the United Kingdom, a criminal case against Mr Smith is styled in case citation as R v Smith , referring to the crown acting as the prosecuting party. R is short for Rex or Regina, that is,
18500-579: The result is going to an asylum, a clearly inadequate result for somebody suffering from occasional epileptic fits, and many conditions unrecognized by nineteenth century medicine. The law has therefore been reformed in many ways. One important reform, introduced in England and Wales by statute is the diminished responsibility defence. The requirements are usually more lax, for instance, being "an abnormality of mind" which "substantially impair[s] mental responsibility for his acts and omission in doing or being
18648-444: The result of breach could have particularly harmful results. An example is drunk driving . Serious torts and fatal injuries occur as a result of actions by company employees, have increasingly been subject to criminal sanctions. All torts committed by employees in the course of employment will attribute liability to their company even if acting wholly outside authority, so long as there is some temporal and close connection to work. It
18796-511: The risk of harm to the worker, they could would be jointly and severally liable and could be sued for the full sum, leaving it up to them to seek contribution from others and thus the risk of other businesses' insolvency. For a brief period, in Barker v Corus the House of Lords then decided that employers would only be liable on a proportionate basis , thus throwing the risk of employers' insolvency back onto workers. Immediately Parliament passed
18944-580: The roads. Like workplaces, this encouraged Parliament to require compulsory insurance for harm. The Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that motorists either be insured against any liability for injuries to other drivers, pedestrians or passengers and damage to property, or have made a specified deposit (£500,000 in 1991) and keeps the sum deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court. Using an uninsured motor vehicle on public roads
19092-412: The role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law , and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act (or actus reus ) and a guilty mental state (or mens rea ). The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation
19240-497: The same features. To defame someone, you must (a) make a factual assertion (b) for which you cannot provide evidence of its truth. Defamation does not affect the voicing of opinions, but comes into the same fields as rights to free speech in the European Convention 's Article 10. UK courts have created a common law responsibility to not share non-public information about others under certain circumstances, regardless of
19388-458: The shopkeeper for breach of contract or consumer rights. The House of Lords by a majority held that the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson, was liable in tort. Lord Atkin held liability was "based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay" and people "must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." By contrast, Lord Macmillan suggested that
19536-534: The technical skill, time, training to litigate, such regulation's primary line of enforcement was through inspectors or agencies before matters went to court. Today the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 , enforced by the Health and Safety Executive , is the main law. The HSE can delegate enforcement to local authorities, whose inspectors have the power to investigate and require changes to workplace systems. In addition, HSWA 1974 section 2 foresees that employees will set up their own workplace committees, elected by
19684-572: The time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion. For example, causing economic loss is a different matter: for one thing it is often caused by deliberate action. Competition involves traders being entitled to damage their rivals' interests by promoting their own, and there is a long chapter of the law determining in what circumstances owners of land can and in what circumstances they may not use their proprietary rights so as to injure their neighbours. But where negligence
19832-457: The unlawful application or force. Alternatively, one may have a pre-existing duty to another person and by deliberately not performing it, one commits a crime. For instance, not giving food is an omission rather than an act, but as a parent one has a duty to feed one's children. Pre-existing duties can arise also through contract , a voluntary undertaking, a blood relation with whom one lives, and occasionally through one's official position. As
19980-430: The victim's own conduct, or another unpredictable event. A mistake in medical treatment usually will not break the chain, unless the mistakes are in themselves "so potent in causing death". For instance, if emergency medics dropped a stab victim on the way to the hospital and performed the wrong resuscitation , the attacker would not be absolved of the crime. The interplay between causation and criminal responsibility
20128-564: The water and his desire to hit her, coincided. In this manner, it does not matter when a guilty mind and act coincide, as long as at some point they do. Sherras v De Rutzen approved in Alphacell Ltd v Woodward Not all crimes have a mens rea requirement, or the threshold of culpability required may be reduced. For example, it might be sufficient to show that a defendant acted negligently , rather than intentionally or recklessly . In offences of absolute liability , other than
20276-406: The wording of the statute and rules of the common law. There are general defences. Insanity , automatism , mistake and self defence operate as defences to any offence. Inadvertence due to intoxication is a defence to all offences requiring proof of basic intent if the intoxication is involuntary, and in cases where the risk would not have been obvious to a reasonable and sober person and/or
20424-543: The working day. These Acts typically targeted particular kinds of workplaces, such as mines, or textile mills, before the more generalised approach took hold now seen in the Factories Act 1961 . That applies to any workplace where an article is made or changed, or animals are kept and slaughtered. The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 made employers automatically liable for equipment with defects supplied by third parties. Because isolated employees lack
20572-406: Was a snake and strangled her. Here, intoxication operated as a defence because Mr Lipman was mistaken in his specific intent of killing a snake. But intoxication does not negate the basic intent crime of manslaughter, with his "reckless course of conduct" in taking drugs. Lastly, while a mistake about a person or the actual action is acceptable, a mistake about how much force to use to defend oneself
20720-480: Was a bad landlord, threatening and beating up tenants to get their rent from them in cash. He was charged for a criminal offence and sentenced to prison. He claimed that his solicitors (Jones and Others) had acted without the evidence, especially the witness statement of a person who knew that Mr McLoughlin was not present when the beatings allegedly took place. It soon became apparent that he was actually an upstanding member of society and he suffered psychiatric injury as
20868-468: Was authorised. Where in Limpus v London General Omnibus Company an omnibus driver chose to disobey strict instructions from his employer, to obstruct a rival company, they were still liable, as he was merely engaging in his duties in an unauthorised way. However, in the contrasting case of Beard v London General Omnibus Company , there was no liability where a conductor drove an omnibus negligently, as it
21016-408: Was found not insane and guilty of murder. Automatism is a state where the muscles act without any control by the mind, or with a lack of consciousness. A successful automatism defence negatives the actus reus element of a crime. If someone raises this defence, then it is for the prosecution to disprove . Automatismic actions can be a product of insanity , or not. One may suddenly fall ill, into
21164-425: Was held that to allow the defence of duress as a defence to murder would, in the words of Lord Hailsham, withdraw the protection of the criminal law from the innocent victim and cast the cloak of its protection upon the coward and the poltroon - ordinary people ought to be prepared to give up their lives to the person making the threat in preference to killing an innocent. R v Gotts , in a similar fashion, disallowed
21312-466: Was no part of his duties. Under the test, employers were generally not held liable for intentional torts of their employees. Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd established a newer test, stating that employers would be liable for torts which were closely connected to the duties of an employee. The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in 'damages' or money. In a limited range of cases, tort law will tolerate self-help, such as reasonable force to expel
21460-494: Was not allowed to advance the defence of necessity. Again in Chicon v DPP [1994] the defence of necessity was not allowed in a case of a pit bull terrier dog being kept in a public place without a muzzle - the owner had removed the muzzle to allow the dog to drink. But in the case of In re F (Mental Patient Sterilization) , the defence of necessity was allowed. In the case of R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust ,
21608-507: Was outraged and overwhelmingly supportive of the crew's right to preserve their own lives. In the end, the Crown commuted their sentences to six months. Since then, in the 1970s, in several road traffic cases, although obiter dicta , it has been stated that there is a defence of necessity. In Johnson v Phillips [1975], Justice Wein stated that a police constable would be entitled to direct motorists to disobey road traffic regulations if this
21756-580: Was reasonably necessary for the protection of life or property. In a later case, Woods v Richards , Justice Eveleigh stated that the defence of necessity depended on the degree of emergency which existed or the alternative danger to be averted. In DPP v Harris a police officer, charged with driving without due care and attention through a red traffic light contrary to s 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 , and having collided with another vehicle containing armed robbers whilst pursuing that vehicle,
21904-420: Was the case where chemicals from a factory seeped through a floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's reservoirs. A trespass is a direct injury to a person, his property or land, committed directly and intentionally by the defendant, for example, walking on someone's land is not trespass but cutting a gate into pieces with a saw is. However, this rule did not cater for anything injured indirectly by
#255744