Tort Buy This File From Http

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/4/2019 Tort Buy This File From Http

    1/6

    Buy this file from http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647

    The word tort derives from the Latin tortus, meaning crooked or twisted,

    and the Norman-French tort, meaning wrong. In English law we use the

    word tort to denote certain civil wrongs as distinct from criminal wrongs.

    The early Anglo-Saxon did not distinguish between civil wrongs and criminal wrongs. In the Middle

    Ages, however, the idea sprang up that certain

    wrongs of an anti-social king, e.g. treason, murder, theft, arson, and the like,

    were offences against the King or the State. The Kings peace, as it was called,

    extended to every corner of the land, and all crimes were at the same time

    breaches of the peace. Certain other wrongs, done by one person to another,

    were disregarded by the King and the State. These were left to be enforced by

    the person claiming to be injured or wronged. The injured claimant decided

    whether to take action or not. The claim, if any, was for damages, i.e. money

    compensation or reparation for the injury inflicted by the defendant.

    Whether or not a claimant had a right of action against another for an

    alleged wrong depended on the existence of a writ wherewith to begin the

    action. The rights available depended in practice on the writs available. The

    Forms of Action, as these were called, enshrined the rights. If there was no

    writ there was no remedy available in the courts of law.

    The most important all-purpose writ which covered the common civil

    wrongs in medieval society was trespass. This was available for all direct

    injuries to the person, goods, or lands. Thus a personal injury to another, e.g.

    assault and battery, damage to personal goods, to gates, hedges, lands, or

    mere entry on lands or cattle trespass, fell within the ambit of trespass.

    The writ of trespass was aptly called the fertile mother of actions. After

    the Statute of Westminster II, 1285, there grew up offshoots of trespass,

    named trespass on the case. Whereas the writ of trespass was available for all

  • 8/4/2019 Tort Buy This File From Http

    2/6

    direct and forcible injuries, the writs of trespass on the case were used for all

    injuries which were indirect.

    For example, where A walks across Bs land, or lifts Bs gate off its hinges,

    or punches B on the nose, there is a direct and forcible injury to the property

    or person of another: the writ of trespass lay.

    But where A lights a fire on his or her own property which spreads to a

    neighbours house and burns it, or where A digs a hole into which B falls, or

    A leaves a log in the road and B trips over it and is injured, As action is not

    direct and forcible: the writ of trespass did not lie. The claimant proceeded

    by trespass on the case.

    First, we must examine the distinctions between (a) a tort and a crime, (b) a

    tort and a breach of contract, and (c) a tort and a breach of trust.

    The object of criminal proceedings is primarily punishment. The police are

    the principal agents to enforce the criminal law, though a private person may

    also prosecute a criminal offence. If the defendant is found guilty the court

    8 The law of torts

    1 The nature of

    a tort

    (a) A crime

    Buy this file from http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647Buy this file from

    http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647

    may award the proper punishment. The object of proceedings in tort is not

    punishment, but compensation or reparation to the claimant, previously designated as the plaintiff

    for the loss or injury caused by the defendant, i.e. damages.

    The same facts may disclose a crime and a tort. Thus, if A steals Bs coat,

    there is (i) a crime of theft, and (ii) trespass to goods (a tort) and conversion

    (also a tort). If X assaults Y, there is both a crime and a tort.

  • 8/4/2019 Tort Buy This File From Http

    3/6

    In contract the duties are fixed by the parties themselves. They impose terms

    and conditions themselves by their agreement. In tort, on the other hand, the

    duties are fixed by law (common law or statute) and arise by the operation of

    the law itself.

    Here, too, the same circumstances may give rise to a breach of contract

    and a tort. Thus, if A hires a taxi-cab driven by B, and B by dangerous driving injures the passenger,

    (A), the latter will have a cause of action for

    (i) breach of the contractual duty of care, and (ii) the tort of negligence.

    So, too, where A employs privately a surgeon, B, to operate on As son, B

    owes A a contractual duty of care. If B fails in that duty there will also be

    liability in tort to the child.

    As we have seen (p. 15) a breach of trust fell within the jurisdiction of the

    Chancery Courts, and although compensation may be awarded for damage

    suffered by reason of the breach of trust, the real distinction is due to the history of equity and

    common law rather than to logical reasons and development.

    The province of tort is to allocate responsibility for injurious conduct

    (Lord Denning). Such is the area of the law with which we are concerned.

    A tort has been defined as a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common

    law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach

    of a contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation

    (Salmond: Law of Torts).

    Prof. P.H. Winfield, another important authority in this field, asserts that

    tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; such

    duty is towards persons generally, and its breach is redressible by an action for

    unliquidated damages (Law of Tort).

    What is the essential difference between these two writers? One school

    maintains there is a general principle of liability in tort, and that all harm is

    actionable in the absence of just cause or excuse: i.e. there is a law of tort (not

  • 8/4/2019 Tort Buy This File From Http

    4/6

    torts). The other school maintains that there are a number of specific torts,

    and that unless the damage or injury suffered can be brought within the

    scope of one or more of these torts there is no remedy.

    As a general rule, where one person suffers unlawful harm or damage at the

    hands of another, an action in tort for that damage or injury arises. An action

    in tort lies, for example, in the situation where A negligently collides with Bs

    stationary car on a road and causes damage to it.

    Sometimes we find instances where harm is done by one person to another

    yet the law does not provide a remedy: this is described as damnum sine

    injuria (damage without legal wrong). Ordinary trade competition is the

    most common example. Let us suppose that a giant supermarket sets up

    adjacent to, and in competition with, a small family grocer, selling all goods

    cheaper. The result could well be that the family grocer, unable to compete, is

    180 Law Made Simple

    (b) A breach of

    contract

    (c) Breach of a trust

    Definition of a tort

    Damage and liability

    Buy this file from http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647Buy this file from

    http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647

    forced out of business. Harm is done to the grocer and his or her family in

    that they lose their livelihood, yet the law offers no remedy to them.

    The law of torts 181

    Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892)

  • 8/4/2019 Tort Buy This File From Http

    5/6

    The X company and the Y company were rival traders in China tea. The Y company persuaded

    merchants in China not to act as the X companys agents, otherwise the Y company would withdraw

    their agency. Held: that the Y company

    acted with the lawful object of protecting and extending their trade and the

    means used were not unlawful.

    In contrast to the above, we can imagine a situation where there is a legal

    wrong but no loss or damage. This is described as injuria sine damno, and is

    an exception to the general rule that there must be damage or injury before

    action may be brought. Certain torts are actionable per se (i.e. actionable in

    themselves). Examples are trespass and libel: in either of these cases no loss

    need be alleged or proved.

    If A trespasses on Bs land, or if A removes Bs goods without lawful

    authority, A may be sued in trespass; the mere entry on the land or the mere

    removal of the article constitutes in each case a trespass. Similarly in libel, as

    we shall see, the mere publication of the libel constitutes the wrong even

    though the party defamed may have suffered no loss whatsoever.

    In torts not actionable per se, the claimant will succeed only if it can be

    proved that the defendant has infringed a legal right and that thereby the

    claimant has suffered damage.

    Malice in its popular and narrow sense means spite and ill-will. In law the

    term has two distinct meanings which should be understood. Malice in its

    legal sense means:

    (i) The doing of a wrongful act intentionally, without just cause or excuse.

    In other words wilful and conscious wrongdoing.

    (ii) The doing of an act from some improper motive, i.e. a motive of which

    the law disapproves for the act in question.

    To act maliciously means, therefore, to do the act from some wrong and

    improper motive, or merely to do the act intentionally.

  • 8/4/2019 Tort Buy This File From Http

    6/6

    In tort, the intention or motive for an action is generally irrelevant.

    Malice

    Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895)

    P, with a view to including Bradford Corporation to buy his land at a high

    price, sank a shaft on his land which interfered with the water flowing in

    undefined channels into the corporation reservoir. The corporation applied for

    an injunction to restrain P from collecting the underground water. Held: that an

    injunction would not lie. P was entitled as owner to draw from his land the

    underground water. His malice, if any, in trying to force the purchase of the

    land, was irrelevant. No use of property which would be legal if done with a

    proper motive can be illegal if done with an improper motive.

    Buy this file from http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647The publisher detailed in the

    title page holds the copyright for this document

    All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

    transmitted,

    in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise, without

    the written

    permission of Spenford IT Ltd who are licensed to reproduce this document by the

    publisher

    All requests should by sent in the first instance to

    [email protected]

    Please ensure you have book-marked our website.

    www.download-it.org

    Chapter extract

    To buy the full chapter, and for copyright

    information, click here

    http://www.download-it.org/learning-

    resources.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=647