INTRODUCTION to TORT What is a Tort? - A tort is a civil wrong.

That (wrong) is based on a breach of a duty imposed by law The breach gives rise to a (personal) civil right of action for a remedy. Duties owed to whole world

The Aims of Tort Law To provide compensation to PLAINTIFF for the damage they suffered as a result o Compensation: Through the award of (pecuniary) damages The object of compensation is to place the victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. In some cases to provide punitive damages as a punishment to deter future potential offenders secondary aim o Loss distribution: shifting losses from victims to perpetrators

Sources of Tort Law Common Law - Developed through courts Donoghue and Stevenson Statute Law Thematic Statutes - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

Interests Protected in Tort Law Personal security o Trespass; to person o Negligence Reputation o Defamation Property o Trespass Economic and financial interests

OTHER

Elements of tort law must be proven - conduct crucial. Burden of proof: On the balance of probabilities

TRESPASS TO PERSON What is Trespass? - Three common elements: Intentional/negligent act. Directly causes injury. Without lawful justification

Injury in Trespass Injury = a breach of right, not necessarily actual damage Trespass requires only proof of injury not actual damage

Assault: Actionable per se Intentional/negligent act or threat. Directly causes reasonable apprehension of an imminent physical interference. Without lawful justification Self-contained Tort; doesnt require physical contact! o Pursell v Horne: defendant threw a bucket of water at the plaintiff o Stephens v Myers: Possible to sue in assault even if the imminent physical interference is intercepted. o Tubervill v Savage: Defendants words negated the assault o Read v Coker: Gesture and intent (verbal threat) constituted an assault.

Battery The intentional or negligent act Directly causes a physical interference with the body Without lawful justification o Cole v Turner: Least amount of touching in anger = battery; harmful and offensive contact o Ball v Axten: Intending to hit someone and hitting another = assault & battery o Haystead v DPP: Indirect battery to baby (dropped) as a result of battery to woman o Gravil v Carroll: Not consented to excess damage in rugby.

False Imprisonment Actionable per se The intentional act - Fault or malice is irrelevant. Directly causes the total restraint of liberty; confinement to a limited area Without lawful justification. o Meering v Grahame White Aviation Murray v MoD: Knowledge of confinement not essential for assessing tort but for assessing damages o Bird v Jones: Bridge corded off, plaintiff had other means of escape o Austin v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: Defence of necessity was greater.

Wilkinson v Downton: Defendant wilfully committed an act which caused harm (nervous shock) to the plaintiff.

TRESPASS TO LAND Actionable per se Clerk & Lindsell: Trespass to land consists in any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the (sufficient and exclusive) possession of another. Winfield: Trespass to landis constituted by unjustifiable interference with the possession of land.

Elements Direct Interference o Butler v Standard Telephones: The defendants poplar tree roots spread across the boundary to the land of the plaintiff caused damage to the houses. Intention o Smith v Stone: Defendant was thrown unto the land no liability Possession of land

Types

Land o Wrongful Entry: Entick v Carrington o Remaining on land: o Placing objects on land: Homes v Wilson Erected buttresses on plaintiffs land to support sinking road. Airspace Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco; Ad hung 4 inches over plaintiffs land. Subsoil Bocardo v Star Energy; Drilling at an angle on an oil field, boundary crossed on to plaintiffs land.

Defence: Justification by Law Licence/Permission Robson v Hallett Right of Way/Easement/Customary Rights DPP v Jones; peaceful protest reasonable use of highway Necessity Cope v Sharp; defendant finding refuge on plaintiffs land because of fire.

Remedies Damages Injunction

PUBLIC NUISSANCE An act which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her Majestys subjects. AG V PYA Quarries; operations resulted in dust and vibrations from explosions which affected the local residents. Acts that Amount to Nuisance are activities that Endanger the public Cause them inconvenience and discomfort Prevent them exercising their rights

Highway Nuisance: Unreasonable use and obstruction of the highway; dangers arising from premises adjourning highway Elements Material interference Class of Her Majestys subjects o R v Shorrock; 25 complaints of noise from a rave Special Damage by the plaintiff over and above the other members of the community affected. o Benjamin v Storr: Defendants horses poo on the pavement in front of plaintiffs coffee shop. Plaintiff suffered special damage; lost customers as they were put off by the smell. o Tate & Lyle Industries v GLC; Build-up of silt on the bottom of river on ferry terminals; plaintiffs spent huge amount of money to dredge it, suffering special damage.

Defences Statutory authority Planning permission

Remedies Damages Injunction Mesne profit

NB: Able to sue for personal injury and economic loss Corby Group Litigation v Corby BC: 18 Children born with deformities. R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein: Individual private nuisance committed against several people does not amount to Public Nuisance.

PRIVATE NUISANCE Continuous Unlawful Indirect interference With the use or enjoyment of land or of some right over or in connection with it.

CLAIMANTS A person who has a proprietary interest in the land affected OR be in exclusive possession or occupation of it as tenant or under a licence to occupy Or beneficial interest (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 141: The P was using a toilet. The lavatory cistern fell on her head because of vibrations from machinery on adjoining property. Her claim failed as she was merely the wife of a mere licensee, and had no proprietary interest herself in the land. However, today she would be able to claim in negligence (per Lords Goff and Hoffman in Hunter v Canary Wharf). Other Elements Physical Damage Foreseeability of damage Locality Claimants sensitivity Utility of Defendants conduct Malice