Law Unit 6

Law Unit 6: Section 6.1 Overview of tort law What is Tort Law? Tort is a branch of civil law, separate from contract and criminal law. The term "tort" itself means "wrong." The fundamental objective of tort law is to provide monetary compensation to claimants who suffer loss or injury due to the defendant’s wrongful act. It protects a wide scope of interests and covers various types of harm eligible for compensation. The tort of negligence has become the most important due to its wide application. However, not all losses are recoverable in tort. For example, if a shop owner loses business due to a new discount store opening nearby, they cannot sue unless there was some legal wrong involved. The law does not guarantee compensation for all forms of economic competition or unfortunate events. Purpose of Tort Law: The main purpose is monetary compensation. There are two main mechanisms: 1. Loss shifting: The defendant pays damages, shifting the loss from the claimant to them. 2. Loss spreading: Based on distributive justice, where compulsory insurance spreads the loss among many people. Interests Protected by Tort Law Trespass to person/land: Direct and intentional contact with a person (assault, battery) or unlawful entry onto someone’s property. Nuisance: Protects against indirect interference with land enjoyment. A neighbor burning rubbish causing excessive smoke. Defamation: Compensates for harm to reputation from false statements and can also prevent publication of such statements Insurance and Tort Law 90%+ of compensation comes from insurance, especially in road or workplace incidents. Individuals and institutions (schools, doctors) often have liability insurance while compulsory insurance is vital for victim compensation as it ensures victims are compensated even if the defendant lacks personal wealth. Without insurance, many claims would be pointless unless the defendant is wealthy. While tort law aims to enforce good behaviour, in practice, the deterrent effect is limited because people act more out of fear of personal harm or criminal penalties than civil liability..

[Audio] When discussing tort law, it is necessary to consider policy considerations and economic factors. In determining the amount of damages to be awarded in a case, the court must take into account the allocation of resources and the economic impact on the defendant. The case of McFarlane v Tayside Health Board in 1999 serves as a prime example of this. The couple in this case had chosen to undergo sterilization after having four children, but due to a failed vasectomy and negligent medical advice, the wife became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child. The couple sued for £10000 for the pain and distress caused by the pregnancy and £100000 for the cost of raising the child. The legal issue in this case was whether the couple could recover the cost of raising the child due to medical negligence. However, the House of Lords rejected this claim, ruling that a healthy child cannot be considered a "loss". Only damages for pain and distress were awarded. This case sparked criticism, as it was seen as diverting resources from helping the sick and contributing to the rise of the "compensation culture". This culture was seen to encourage blame and claims for even minor issues, resulting in defensive behavior by various institutions and professionals. However, a 2004 report by the Better Regulation Task Force found that the compensation culture was largely a myth and that UK tort costs were actually lower than in many similar economies. Despite this, the perception remains. Another case that sheds light on this issue is Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council in 2004. In this case, a man ignored "No Swimming" signs and dived into shallow water, resulting in paralysis. He then sued the council for inadequate safety measures. This case highlights the fact that individuals may attempt to hold others responsible for their own actions, even when they were warned of potential danger. It also emphasizes the importance of balancing resources and protecting against frivolous claims..

[Audio] In today's presentation, we will discuss the third slide which focuses on negligence, the central tort in civil law's branch known as tort law. Negligence is the most common tort in our society, resulting from careless actions rather than intentional ones. Simply put, negligence is when someone fails to take reasonable care and causes harm or injury to another. This can happen in various situations, such as car accidents or medical malpractice. When a defendant is found liable for negligence, they are held personally responsible and often required to pay compensation to the victim, to discourage others from acting negligently. One significant area where negligence is a concern is the healthcare industry. The NHS faces over 10000 legal claims annually, leading to £4.3 billion in legal fees and a total liability of £83 billion. This substantial cost is often attributed to patient safety failures by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), who believe that most claimants want to understand what went wrong and prevent future harm. However, the Department of Health disagrees, stating that patient safety has not decreased. The Medical Defence Union (MDU) believes that the laws regarding clinical negligence and the calculation of compensation need to be reformed. In an effort to reduce costs, NHS Resolution is promoting mediation instead of court trials, which has proven successful as over 70% of claims against the NHS are settled without going to court. We hope this presentation has given you a better understanding of the concept of negligence and its impact on society. Stay tuned for the next slide, where we will further explore this topic..

[Audio] Slide number 4 introduces the concept of negligence and duty of care in tort law. This concept holds individuals legally responsible for harm caused to others due to their failure to take reasonable care. The three essential elements for a successful claim are duty of care, breach of duty, and causation & remoteness. Duty of care means that the defendant had a legal responsibility to take reasonable care. Breach of duty refers to the failure to meet the required standard of care. Causation & remoteness involves proving that the harm caused was not too remote. For example, if someone becomes blind due to a genetic condition, there is no legal wrong or liability. However, if someone is blinded due to their employer's negligence, the employer is held liable. It is important to note that negligence is fault-based, meaning liability arises from careless conduct. The purpose of compensation is to act as a deterrent, but the law also considers policy concerns such as deterrence, insurance, fairness, and avoiding a floodgate of litigation. The concept of duty of care establishes boundaries for when one person is responsible for another's harm. In established duties, such as motorists owing a duty to other road users or manufacturers to consumers, the duty of care is already established by precedent. In novel situations with no precedent, courts determine if the defendant should be held responsible based on factors like foreseeability, proximity, and fairness. In summary, negligence and duty of care are vital concepts in tort law and play a significant role in holding individuals accountable for their actions and compensating those who have suffered harm or loss..

[Audio] Slide number 5 of our presentation on tort law focuses on the case study of the development of duty of care. In Donoghue v Stevenson, Mrs. Donoghue became ill from consuming a ginger beer with a decomposed snail in it. She sued the manufacturer for damages, raising the legal issue of whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to a consumer with whom they have no contract. The court's decision was yes, as the House of Lords established the "neighbour principle" - stating that a manufacturer has a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. This principle, outlined by Lord Atkin, states that one must take reasonable care to avoid harm to those directly affected by their actions. This has become widely accepted in tort law. In the development of duty tests, the case of Anns v Merton LBC presented another negligence case where a local authority negligently inspected building foundations, leading to structural defects in flats. The legal issue was whether the authority owed a duty of care for building inspections. The court's decision was they did, and the House of Lords applied a two-stage test. The first stage was foreseeability - was harm foreseeable? The second stage was policy - are there reasons to deny liability? However, this test was later overruled in Murphy v Brentwood DC as it was deemed too expansive and led to excessive claims. The new ruling set limits on liability for pure economic loss. In the case of Murphy v Brentwood DC, a council negligently approved faulty house foundations, causing the claimant to suffer pure economic loss by having to sell their property at a loss. The legal issue was whether the claimant could recover for this pure economic loss. The court's decision was no, as the precedent set by Anns was overruled and pure economic loss is not recoverable in negligence unless there is a duty for it. This case was significant in establishing limits on liability for pure economic loss and overruling the expansive ruling of Anns. Thank you for listening to our presentation on the development of duty of care in tort law..

[Audio] Slide 6 discusses omissions, or the failure to act, in relation to liability. According to English law, liability for omissions is typically not imposed unless there is a special relationship, such as parent-child or employer-employee, or if the defendant created the danger or assumed responsibility. We will now look at some case studies on omissions. In the case of Stovin v Wise [1995], a council was accused of failing to remove a known hazard, resulting in a road accident. However, the court ruled that the council did not have a duty of care for failing to act. Similarly, in the case of Smith v Littlewoods [1987], a cinema owner was not held liable for failing to prevent third-party harm. The court stated that there is no general duty to prevent third-party actions. And in the case of Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009], a council tenant was killed by a neighbor after the council failed to warn him about potential eviction. However, the court ruled that the council did not have a duty to warn the tenant. These cases highlight the general stance of English law on omissions, which means that liability is not typically imposed unless there is a clear special relationship or assumption of responsibility. This has made it more challenging to establish liability in new cases, instead of the previous legal doctrine known as Anns. This concludes our discussion on omissions in tort law. Let's now move on to our next slide..

[Audio] Slide number 7 of our presentation on Tort Law focuses on case studies that illustrate the key principles of this branch of civil law. The first case study, Goldman v Hargrave [1967], involved a tree that was struck by lightning and smoldered for days. The defendant, who did not fully extinguish the fire, allowed it to spread and damage the claimant's land. The legal issue at hand was whether there was a duty to prevent a known hazard from spreading. The court's decision was yes, as the risk was foreseeable. This case highlights the principle that even if one did not create the danger, they still have a duty to prevent it from causing harm. Moving on to our next case study, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970], where Borstal boys escaped due to officers' negligence and caused damage to a yacht. The legal issue was whether the Home Office could be held liable for the actions of third parties. The court's decision was yes, as the officers had a special relationship with the boys and had control over them. This means that the Home Office had assumed responsibility for the boys and therefore had a duty to prevent harm from occurring. Our final case study for this slide is Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [1990]. In this case, a prisoner with known suicidal tendencies killed himself while in custody. The police had failed to inform the prison authorities of the prisoner's condition. The legal issue was whether the police could be held liable for their failure to pass on critical information. The court's decision was yes, as they had assumed responsibility for the prisoner and failed to act on a known risk. This case highlights the principle that once responsibility is assumed, there is a duty to take reasonable care. In regards to public authorities, it is important to note that while the police are not generally liable for failing to prevent crime, they may be liable for operational negligence. The final case study, Knightley v Johns [1982], illustrates this. In this case, a senior police officer made a poor operational judgment and instructed another officer to drive the wrong way, which led to an accident. The court's decision was yes, as the senior officer's decision created a foreseeable risk and caused injury. These case studies provide valuable insights into the principles and duties in Tort Law..

[Audio] In Tort law, the Hill Principle is a significant concept that applies to the police's liability in civil cases. It was established in the 1989 case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. In this case, the mother of a victim of the infamous Yorkshire Ripper sued the police for their investigative failings in preventing her daughter's murder. The legal issue presented to the court was whether the police owe a duty to individual victims. The court determined that they do not, as imposing a duty on the police would not be fair, just, or reasonable. This decision led to the establishment of the Hill Principle, which states that the police are generally not liable for their investigative actions due to public policy considerations. This principle was reaffirmed in the 2005 case of Brooks v Commissioner of Police, where the claimant, Duwayne Brooks, sued the police for negligence after being present at the scene of a racially motivated murder. The legal issue in this case was whether the police owe a duty of care to victims or witnesses during investigations. The House of Lords rejected the claim, applying the Hill Principle and stating that the police do not owe a duty of care in such circumstances. This principle highlights the importance of public policy considerations in determining the liability of the police in cases of negligence. We will continue to explore more case studies as we move on to our next slide..

[Audio] In slide 9, we will discuss the ninth case study on police immunity in the context of tort law. This branch of civil law aims to provide financial compensation to individuals who have been harmed or experienced loss due to the wrongful actions of others. In the case of Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985], the police were involved in a siege at a gun shop where they fired a gas canister without proper fire precautions, causing a fire to break out. The legal issue was whether the police were responsible for the resulting damage. After careful consideration, the court determined that the police were indeed liable for their negligent actions and were held accountable for the harm and loss caused. This case highlights the importance of adhering to proper procedures and precautions, even in high-pressure and intense situations. It also emphasizes the responsibility of authorities to ensure the safety and well-being of the public, even during operational acts. We will continue to discuss more cases and scenarios in our presentation. Now, we will move on to our next case study..

[Audio] reasonable person" standard in specific scenarios." This training video focuses on tort law, specifically the topic of negligence and the standard of care in a negligence claim. The first step in determining if a duty of care was breached is to establish a duty of care, determined by the Caparo test. If a duty of care exists, the next question is whether it was breached. A breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to meet the standard of care required by law. This standard is objective, disregarding the defendant's personal characteristics and focusing on the actions of a hypothetical reasonable person. This principle was established in the 1856 case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co and reinforced in the 1943 case of Glasgow Corporation v Muir. These cases serve as examples of the reasonable person standard. In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, the defendants were not found negligent for a burst water main during an unusual frost, as a reasonable person would not have foreseen or prevented it. The court's decision in this case established that negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do, or doing something a reasonable and prudent person would not do. The standard is not perfection, but rather reasonable foresight and care. In the case of Glasgow Corporation v Muir, the defendant was found liable for injuries sustained by children because a reasonable person would have taken precautions in this situation. Overall, the standard of care in a negligence claim is determined by the "reasonable person" standard in specific scenarios..

[Audio] In a tort law case, the standard of care is crucial to consider. The first factor is the foreseeability of harm, meaning a person cannot be held liable for risks that were not foreseeable at the time. The defendant is judged based on the knowledge available at the time, not on hindsight. If a risk was not known, there is no liability, known as the "state of the art" defense. To better understand this concept, let's look at the case of Roe v Ministry of Health, where a patient became paralyzed due to a contaminated spinal anesthetic. The contamination was caused by invisible cracks in glass ampoules stored in disinfectant. In 1947, it was not known that contamination could occur this way. The legal issue was whether the hospital was negligent in preventing the contamination. The court's decision was that the hospital was not negligent as the risk was not known at the time. This principle is based on the foreseeability of harm - a person cannot be held responsible for unforeseeable risks. The second factor to consider is that the standard of care is objective. This means the law does not take into account the defendant's personal abilities, experience, or intentions, but asks what a reasonable person would have done in the situation. Even if the defendant tried their best, they can still be found negligent if their actions did not meet the objective standard. It is the judge, not the defendant, who ultimately decides what is considered reasonable. This promotes consistency and fairness in the legal system. An example of the objective standard is Nettleship v Weston, where a learner driver caused an accident, injuring their instructor. The legal issue was whether a learner driver should be held to the same standard as a qualified driver. The Court of Appeal held that the standard of care for a learner driver is the same as that of a qualified driver. In summary, when assessing the standard of care in a tort law case, it is crucial to consider the foreseeability of harm and the objective standard..

[Audio] Slide 12 discusses risk-balancing factors in tort law, including the magnitude of the risk, seriousness of consequences, cost of precautions, and social utility. The responsibility of the defendant increases with a higher risk of harm, but may be reasonable to ignore in cases of extremely low risk. To illustrate this, real-life examples will be examined. In the case of Bolton v Stone, a person was hit by a cricket ball after it was struck out of the ground, resulting in injury. However, this had only happened six times in 28 years and no harm had occurred before. The court found the cricket club not liable as the risk was foreseeable but extremely small. This shows how the magnitude of the risk affects liability. In Miller v Jackson, cricket balls regularly caused damage to a person's property when hit out of the ground. The court held the cricket club liable due to the greater and recurring risk involved. This case demonstrates how a significant and recurring risk can lead to liability. Lastly, in Haley v London Electricity Board, a blind person fell into a hole dug by workers and was injured. The court found the defendants liable as the precautions taken were not sufficient for blind persons, who were foreseeable users. This highlights the importance of foreseeability and taking precautions for all potential affected parties. In conclusion, the magnitude of the risk is a significant factor in determining liability in tort law. Higher risk may result in a higher standard of care, while low or foreseeable risks may not lead to liability. It's important to consider all factors when determining the appropriate standard of care in order to prevent harm and provide compensation for those who suffer it. This concludes our discussion on risk-balancing factors in tort law on slide 12..

[Audio] Tort law is a branch of civil law that focuses on providing financial compensation to individuals who have suffered harm or loss due to the actions of others. The severity of consequences is an important factor in determining liability in tort law, as demonstrated in the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council. In this case, a blind employee was left completely blind after a workplace accident due to the employer's failure to provide protective goggles. In assessing risk, the cost and effort required to eliminate that risk must also be taken into consideration. In the case of Latimer v AEC Ltd, the court found that the factory was not liable for a worker's slip and fall on a wet floor, as closing the factory to prevent such accidents would have been a disproportionate response. However, in the case of Smith v Littlewoods Ltd, the court found the defendants not liable for a fire on their property that spread to the claimant's property, as they had no knowledge or reason to suspect the threat and the cost of additional security measures would have been unreasonable. Ultimately, the reasonableness of the cost of precautions in relation to the risk is an important factor in determining liability in cases of potential harm or loss. Thank you for listening to this presentation on tort law..

[Audio] We will now discuss case studies related to the principles of tort law. Our first case study is the Wagon Mound (No. 2) from 1967, where furnace oil was spilled into Sydney Harbour causing significant damage. The legal issue at hand was whether it was negligent to take the small risk of a fire. The court concluded that the defendants were liable because the probability of a fire was low and the potential damage could have been prevented with ease. This scenario emphasizes the importance of balancing risk, consequences, and precautions. Moving on to our next case study, Watt v Hertfordshire County Council from 1954, a fireman was injured while transporting a heavy jack on an unsuitable vehicle during an emergency. The legal issue was whether the risk was justified in this situation. The court ruled in favor of the fire service, stating that the risk was justified in the interest of public safety. This case highlights the role of social utility in determining acceptable levels of risk, where valuable purposes such as saving lives may justify taking greater risks. Our final case study in this section is the standard of care for children. In the case of McHale v Watson from 1966, a 12-year-old caused harm while playing with a pointed steel rod. The legal issue was what is the appropriate standard of care for children. The court determined that the defendant was not liable, as they were held to the standard of an ordinary child of the same age. This demonstrates the concept of age-appropriate standard of care for children. In conclusion, these case studies illustrate how the principles of tort law are applied in specific scenarios, taking into account the magnitude of risk, seriousness of consequences, and cost of precautions, as well as social utility and age-appropriate standards of care..

[Audio] Slide 15: Medical Professionals In tort law, the standard of care for medical professionals is determined by the standard of the reasonably competent professional in their field, rather than the reasonable person standard. This is known as the Bolam test, established in the 1957 case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. The case involved a patient who suffered a fractured pelvis after undergoing electroconvulsive therapy without muscle relaxants. The issue was whether the doctor was negligent for not administering relaxants. The court ruled that the doctor was not negligent, as their actions aligned with a responsible body of medical opinion according to the Bolam test. However, in the 1997 case of Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, the Bolam test was modified. This case involved a doctor who failed to properly intubate a child, resulting in brain damage. Experts disagreed on the necessity of intubation for the child's airway treatment. The court ruled that medical opinion can be rejected if it is illogical or indefensible. This modification of the Bolam test emphasizes the importance of a logical basis for medical opinions. This case study highlights the need for continual evaluation and adaptation of standards of care for medical professionals. It also serves as a reminder for medical professionals to always act with a logical and defensible basis for their actions. The consequences of negligence can have severe impacts on both the patient and the reputation of the medical profession. Therefore, it is crucial for medical professionals to stay informed on current standards of care and adhere to the Bolam test by aligning their actions with recognized and logical medical opinions to ensure the safety and well-being of their patients and uphold the integrity of their profession..

[Audio] This slide discusses the doctrine of informed consent in tort law, which establishes the importance of patients being informed about the risks and alternatives of medical treatment and their right to make decisions about their own care. The case of Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors applied a modified Bolam test for risk disclosure, meaning that the doctor was not considered negligent if they followed an accepted medical practice, even if they did not disclose all risks to the patient. However, the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board established the duty of doctors to fully inform patients of material risks and alternatives, and defines a risk as material if a reasonable person in the patient's position would find it significant. This case also emphasized the importance of patients being fully informed to make well-informed decisions about their own care. Overall, informed consent is a crucial aspect of tort law that enforces a patient's right to be informed and make decisions about their own care. As healthcare providers, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients are fully informed and able to make these decisions..

[Audio] In this section, we will examine the concepts of causation and remoteness of damage in negligence claims. The claimant must prove two key elements once a breach of duty is established: causation and remoteness. Causation is when the defendant's breach directly causes the harm or damage suffered by the claimant. This can be a complex issue to determine as there may be multiple factors involved. The "but for" test is commonly used to establish causation by asking whether the harm would have occurred without the defendant's negligence. If the answer is no, then causation is established. However, if the answer is yes, then there is no causation. A famous case, Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital (1969), illustrates the use of the "but for" test. In this case, a night watchman went to the hospital complaining of vomiting but was told to go home by the doctor. He later died of arsenic poisoning. The legal question was whether the doctor's failure to treat him was the cause of his death. The court determined that there was no liability because even if the doctor had treated him, he still would have died. This case solidified the use of the "but for" test in establishing causation. Another case, Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1998), demonstrates the "but for" test when a doctor was accused of failing to attend a child who later died of respiratory failure. The court found no liability, as even if the doctor had attended, she would not have needed to intubate the child and it would not have been considered negligent. Along with causation, the concept of remoteness of damage must also be considered. Remoteness refers to whether the damage suffered is directly related to the defendant's breach, justifying imposing liability. Even if causation is established, the damage may still be considered too remote, often due to being unforeseeable or unfair to impose liability. In conclusion, in negligence claims, the "but for" test is used to establish causation and determine if the defendant's breach directly caused the injury or damage. Additionally, the concept of remoteness of damage must also be taken into account..

[Audio] Slide 18: Let's discuss the challenges with the 'But For' test in tort law. This test is used to determine if an action or event caused harm or loss to an individual. However, in cases where the facts are unclear, the 'but for' test may need to be altered. Firstly, if there are multiple causes of damage, the 'but for' test may not be enough to establish liability. For example, in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, a steel worker developed a disease due to exposure to dust from both negligent and non-negligent sources. The court ruled that the employer could still be held liable because the negligent exposure significantly contributed to the disease. This case established the principle that material contribution is sufficient to prove liability when the 'but for' test cannot be satisfied due to multiple causes. Secondly, there are situations where the defendant's breach of duty may have only increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff. In McGhee v National Coal Board, a worker developed dermatitis due to prolonged exposure to brick dust. The court held that the defendant was liable because their failure to provide washing facilities had increased the risk of harm to the worker. This expanded the scope of liability, as it was not necessary to prove that the breach was the sole cause of the harm, but only that it had increased the risk. In contrast, in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority, a premature baby went blind after receiving excess oxygen. However, there were five potential causes for the blindness, and the court ruled that the defendant could not be held responsible. The court differentiated this case from McGhee, as the plaintiff had to prove that the breach was a material contributing cause of harm. In summary, the 'but for' test may not always be sufficient to prove causation in tort law. In cases involving multiple causes or where a breach only creates a material increase in risk, the test must be modified. It is important to consider this when seeking compensation for harm or loss in tort law..

[Audio] Slide 19: Liability in Cases with Multiple Defendants In tort law, cases involving multiple defendants can be complex. A notable example of this is the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002), in which the claimant developed mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos from several employers. The court had to determine if any one of the employers could be held liable, even though the exact source of the harm could not be proven. The court ruled that all employers were jointly liable because each had materially increased the risk of harm. This decision had a major impact on the handling of industrial disease cases, making it easier for claimants to receive compensation. However, this principle is not always applied in tort law. In Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1987), the court required causation to be proven before awarding damages for lost chances. In this case, a boy fell from a tree and sustained a permanent injury due to a delay in treatment. Medical evidence showed that there was a 25% chance of avoiding permanent damage, but a 75% chance that the injury would have occurred regardless. The legal question was whether the delay actually caused the damage. The court ruled that it did not, as the chance of recovery was only 25%. This case highlights the principle that a claimant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the negligence directly caused the harm. This ensures that liability is accurately attributed and prevents frivolous claims..

[Audio] In slide number twenty, we discuss the concept of Novus Actus Interveniens, or New Intervening Acts, and how it affects the defendant's liability. A new intervening act refers to events that occur after the original wrongful act, which can break the chain of causation and release the defendant from liability for the harm or loss. To better understand this concept, we will look at two case studies. First, Knightley v Johns from 1982, where a police inspector's actions after a car crash resulted in a new and unforeseeable event, breaking the chain of causation and releasing the defendant from liability. In the second case, McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts from 1969, the claimant's unreasonable actions resulted in a further injury, releasing the defendant from liability. However, in the case of Weiland v Cyril Lord Carpets from 1969, the defendant remained liable as the claimant's actions were deemed reasonable. This highlights the importance of the claimant's actions being a reasonable cause for the injury for the defendant to be held liable. In conclusion, understanding the concept of Novus Actus Interveniens and its impact on the chain of causation is crucial in determining the liability of the defendant..

[Audio] Slide number 21 covers the concept of "remoteness of damage" in Tort law. This refers to the principle that even if causation is proven, the damage may be considered too remote to result in liability if it is unforeseeable, unexpected, or a result of an unusual chain of events. The traditional approach to determining remoteness of damage was based on direct consequences, as seen in the case study of Re Polemis (1921), where dockworkers dropped a plank which caused a spark leading to the explosion and destruction of a ship. Despite the unforeseeable damage, the court ruled it as a direct consequence and not too remote to incur liability. However, the modern approach, established in the overruling of Re Polemis in the case of The Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961), focuses on foreseeable consequences. In this case, leaked oil caused a fire that damaged ships, and the court deemed the damage as not foreseeable and therefore not recoverable. This new principle established that only reasonably foreseeable types of harm can be compensated for. This modern rule set by The Wagon Mound (No. 1) case has had a significant impact on the legal system, as it overruled the old rule of direct consequences and set the current standard for determining remoteness of damage. Additionally, the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) further refined the foreseeability rule set by The Wagon Mound (No. 1). In this case, a boy fell into an unattended manhole surrounded by lamps, causing an explosion and burns. The legal issue was whether the explosion damage was too remote, and the court ruled that the burns were foreseeable, even if the explosion itself was not. This case established that only the type of harm needs to be foreseeable, not the exact manner of it. In conclusion, the concept of remoteness of damage in Tort law has evolved over time, from the old rule of direct consequences to the modern rule of foreseeable consequences. The case studies discussed played a crucial role in shaping the legal standard for determining liability. This concludes the discussion on slide number 21..

[Audio] We will now discuss the Egg-Shell Skull Rule, which states that the defendant is fully liable for any physical injury that is foreseeable, even if the claimant has a pre-existing vulnerability. This rule is crucial in protecting vulnerable individuals who have suffered harm or loss due to another's negligence. In the case of Smith v Leech Brain and Co (1962), a worker's pre-malignant condition did not release the defendant from liability for the burn on his lip, which ultimately led to his death from cancer. The court's decision confirmed that if an injury is foreseeable, the defendant is fully liable, even for more serious consequences due to pre-existing conditions. This rule has a significant impact as it ensures that vulnerable claimants are fully compensated for their injuries and holds the defendant accountable for any foreseeable harm or loss, regardless of the claimant's pre-existing vulnerabilities. This concludes our segment on the Egg-Shell Skull Rule in Tort Law. Thank you for watching and stay tuned for our discussion on the next slide..

[Audio] Moving on to our next case, Slide 23 discusses Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956), which explores the idea of multiple causes and the defendant's contribution to the damage. It deviates from the traditional 'but for' test and establishes that even if the harm would have occurred regardless, the defendant's actions can still be held liable if they played a significant role in causing it. Next is the case of McGhee v National Coal Board (1973), which introduces the concept of a material increase in risk. The employer's failure to provide proper washing facilities resulted in an increased risk of dermatitis for the workers. It was found that even if the harm was not directly caused, the defendant's actions materially increased the risk and thus they were held responsible. In Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988), the burden of proof was questioned. With five possible causes, the material increase in risk approach was not applied and the claimant was unable to recover compensation. In contrast, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002) dealt with multiple defendants and found that each employer's negligence materially increased the risk of mesothelioma for the claimant. This allowed the claimant to recover compensation from all parties. Next is the case of Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1987), which introduces the concept of loss of chance. In this case, the claim failed as there was only a 25% chance of avoiding injury and the burden of proof was not satisfied. Moving on, Knightley v Johns (1982) and McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (1969) both involve the breaking of the chain of causation by a third party's unreasonable actions and the claimant's own unreasonable act, respectively. In contrast, Weiland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969) found that the claimant's actions were not unreasonable and did not break the chain of causation. The case of Re Polemis (1921) marks a change in the concept of remoteness. The old test of direct consequence, based on foreseeability, was applied. However, in The Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961), this was overruled and the test for remoteness became whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable..

[Audio] This section discusses the defences available to a defendant in a negligence claim. Even if the claimant is able to prove duty of care, breach, and damage, the defendant may still escape or reduce liability by establishing a defence. However, the burden of proving these elements lies with the claimant, while the burden of establishing a defence falls on the defendant. These defences shift the focus to the claimant's own conduct, including contributory negligence, volenti non fit injuria, and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Contributory negligence is a defence where the defendant argues that the claimant's own actions contributed to their injury or damage. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, courts can apportion liability and reduce damages proportionally to the claimant's fault. Two case studies demonstrate the successful use of contributory negligence as a defence. In Froom v Butcher (1975), the claimant was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's negligence, but also found to be not wearing a seatbelt. The court ruled this as contributory negligence and reduced the damages by 20%. This decision showed that failing to take reasonable precautions can still reduce compensation. In Badger v Ministry of Defence (2006), the claimant's husband died from lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure at work, but was also found to be a heavy smoker. The court found that the smoking contributed to his illness and reduced the damages accordingly. This case established that contributory negligence can apply not only to causation of the accident, but also to failure to mitigate harm. In conclusion, defences to negligence can shift the focus to the claimant's conduct and potentially reduce the defendant's liability. Each case must be assessed individually to determine appropriate liability for all parties involved..

[Audio] In this presentation, we will be examining the legal concept of contributory negligence through two court cases: Owens v Brimmell and Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The first case involved a claimant who accepted a ride from a drunk driver, leading to a 20% reduction in their damages. This reinforces the principle that engaging in risky behavior can impact the compensation awarded. In the second case, the court found the police liable for negligence in a custody situation, but also determined that the claimant was 50% responsible for their own actions, resulting in a 50% reduction in damages. This demonstrates that a claimant's voluntary and intentional actions can also be considered contributory negligence, even when the defendant is at fault. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, courts have the power to divide liability between the parties in cases of contributory negligence, as seen in the Reeves case. This highlights the significant impact that contributory negligence can have on personal injury claims. To further illustrate this concept, we will examine a case where the defense of contributory negligence was unsuccessful. In Smith v Finch, a cyclist was injured in a collision with a car, and despite the defense's argument that the cyclist's failure to wear a helmet contributed to their harm, the argument was not successful in court. These cases demonstrate the significant impact of contributory negligence on personal injury claims, making it important for individuals to be aware of their actions and how they may impact their own safety to avoid being held partially responsible for damages..

[Audio] Slide 26 will focus on the topic of contributory negligence and children. As previously discussed, contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to their own harm, resulting in a reduction of their potential compensation. We will now examine some case studies involving children and contributory negligence. The first case, Gough v Thorne (1966), involved a 13-year-old girl who was hit by a car while crossing the road. The legal question was whether the child's reliance on a lorry driver's signal could be considered contributory negligence. The court ruled that it was not, as children are not expected to have the same level of judgment as adults. This case established the principle that young children are usually not held responsible for contributory negligence. In contrast, in the case of Jackson v Murray (2015), a 13-year-old child was hit by a car while stepping out from behind a school bus. The legal issue was whether the child's actions were contributory negligence. The court initially found the child to be 90% at fault, but this was reduced to 50% due to the fact that children lack adult judgment and the driver was also deemed at fault. Moving on to the defence of volenti non fit injuria, this is used when the claimant willingly accepts a known risk, releasing the defendant from liability. However, courts are cautious in using this defence as it means the claimant will not receive any compensation. This is why contributory negligence is often preferred, as it only reduces damages and requires a specific knowledge and acceptance of the risk by the claimant. The defence of volenti non fit injuria will not hold in situations where the claimant had no real choice, such as in employee situations or rescuers. It also will not hold if the risk was not truly consented to. Additionally, it cannot be used in vehicle accident claims by passengers under Section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as passengers must be able to claim compensation and drive. Thank you for watching slide number 26. In the next slide, we will discuss the impact of contributory negligence and steps to prevent it..

[Audio] Slide number 27 discusses three case studies that demonstrate the concept of volenti non fit injuria in tort law. The first case is Morris v Murray (1991), in which Morris accepted a flight in Murray's plane after a night of heavy drinking. The issue at hand was whether the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk, and the court ultimately decided in favor of the defence of volenti due to the pilot's extreme intoxication. This case set a precedent for determining when intoxication can be considered implied consent. The second case, Cutler v United Dairies Ltd (1933), involved the claimant attempting to calm a horse in a non-urgent situation and getting injured. The legal issue here was whether volenti was applicable, and the court's decision was yes due to the lack of imminent danger and the claimant's voluntary acceptance of the risk. This case established a distinction between urgent and non-urgent rescue attempts. Dann v Hamilton (1939) is the third case that will be discussed, in which the claimant accepted a lift from a visibly drunk driver and was injured in a crash. The legal issue was whether the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk, and the court decided against the defence of volenti due to the drunkenness not being "so extreme" as to imply consent. This case sets a high standard for volenti in drunk-driving cases and clarifies that mere knowledge of the risk does not equate to consent. Lastly, the case of Smith v Charles Baker and Sons (1891) involves an employee being injured by a falling stone that he was aware could fall and had even complained about. The legal issue in this case was whether continuing to work implied consent, and the court ultimately rejected the defence of volenti and established that employees do not freely accept the risks of employer negligence. These case studies showcase how the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria can be successful or unsuccessful in different situations and highlight the importance of thoroughly examining the circumstances of each case, as mere knowledge of the risk does not always imply consent..

[Audio] We will now move on to discussing important legal cases and the defense of "ex turpi causa" or illegality in Tort Law. These cases include Condon v Basi, where a football player was injured during a match and the court ruled that the player's participation did not imply consent to the injury. This established the principle that participants only consent to reasonable risks in sports. The case of Baker v Hopkins involved a doctor's voluntary rescue of workers from a well filled with toxic fumes, which the court deemed as not truly voluntary due to moral pressure. This case highlights the importance of public interest in justifying actions and protects rescuers. Lastly, we will cover the defense of ex turpi causa or illegality, which states that no action can arise from a disgraceful cause. This means that claims arising from illegal conduct are not allowed, such as a burglar not being able to sue a homeowner for injuries sustained during a crime. Thank you for joining us for this discussion and be sure to watch our final slide for a recap of the key points. See you on slide number 29..

[Audio] We will now discuss the Table of Cases in our Tort Law training. The first case is Froom v Butcher from 1975, where a car accident occurred and the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. The court found the plaintiff to be partially at fault and reduced their compensation by 20%, establishing the duty of individuals to ensure their own safety while driving. Next, in Smith v Finch from 2009, a cyclist without a helmet was involved in an accident and was also found to be partially at fault, but their compensation was not reduced as causation could not be proven. This case emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear link between the plaintiff's actions and their injuries. In Badger v MOD from 2006, an individual exposed to asbestos and a smoker was also found to be partially at fault, resulting in a 20% reduction in compensation. This case highlights the impact of fault on the amount of compensation awarded. In Owens v Brimmell from 1977, an employee was injured due to negligence in the workplace and was found to be 50% at fault, with both the employer and employee being held responsible. This resulted in a reduced compensation of 50%. It is important to note that in cases involving institutional and personal fault, blame can be divided among multiple parties. In Reeves v Commissioner from 2000, a detainee committed suicide while in custody and was found to be partially at fault, but their compensation was not reduced. This case highlights the difference between normal citizens and those in custody, as the latter are not fully responsible for their actions. In Gough v Thorne from 1966, a 13-year-old was hit by a car while crossing the road and their compensation was reduced from 90% to 50% based on the balance of fault between the child and the driver. This shows that in cases involving children, their age and maturity are taken into consideration. Lastly, in Jackson v Murray from 2015, another 13-year-old was hit by a car while crossing the road and their compensation was reduced based on the balance of fault..

[Audio] Vicarious liability is a critical concept in the realm of tort law. Generally, individuals are held personally accountable for their actions in tort law. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and this is where vicarious liability becomes relevant. Under this principle, a person who is not at fault can still be held responsible for harm caused by another person. This means that they are essentially taking the place of the at-fault individual in terms of liability. The most common instance of vicarious liability occurs within the employer-employee relationship. In simpler terms, vicarious liability is a form of secondary liability, where an employer is held liable for the actions of their employee, even if they were not personally at fault. It is important to note that this does not replace the employee's own liability, but rather exists in addition to it. There are three types of liability: independent, several, and joint. With independent liability, each party is responsible for their own actions. Several liability means that each party is liable for their share of the harm based on their level of fault. And joint liability holds multiple parties fully responsible, allowing the claimant to seek full compensation from any one or all of them. Now, let's explore the justifications for why courts allow for compensation from both the employee and employer. The "deep pockets" argument suggests that employers are more likely to have the financial means or insurance to compensate victims. The benefit and burden principle argues that since employers benefit from their employees' work, they should also bear the costs of any harm caused. Additionally, deterrence is a motivating factor as employers are incentivized to properly train and supervise their staff to prevent incidents that could result in vicarious liability. In conclusion, understanding vicarious liability is crucial in the field of tort law, as it provides a means to hold individuals accountable for harm caused by another person..

[Audio] Slide number 31 will cover the conditions for vicarious liability. There are three key factors that must be met for an employer to be held liable for an employee's actions. First, there must be an employer-employee relationship, which is determined by the level of control the employer has over the employee. The control test is used to determine this relationship, where the more control the employer has, the more likely the employee is classified as an employee. This was shown in the case of Cassidy v Ministry of Health, where a hospital was held liable for a negligent staff member's actions, despite not having control over medical decisions. In Ferguson v John Dawson and Partners, the court rejected the argument that a worker was an independent contractor based on their contract. Instead, the court looked at the reality of the relationship and classified the worker as an employee, emphasizing that contractual labels do not determine employment status. The next slide will discuss the impact of vicarious liability in tort law. Thank you for joining us for this presentation on tort law and the conditions for vicarious liability..

[Audio] Slide 32: After discussing the various tests used to determine employment status, it is important to review their impact on the development of tort law. These tests have a significant influence on the legal issue at hand, which is how to determine if an individual is considered an employee or an independent contractor. In Case Study 2, the integration (business) test proposed by Lord Denning helps to differentiate between an employee whose work is integral to the business and an independent contractor whose work is merely an accessory. This test is particularly useful in situations where there is limited control over the work. Moving on to the Multiple (Economic Reality) Test, introduced in Case Study 3, this test takes into account factors such as mutual obligations and level of control to determine employment status. It has provided a comprehensive framework for identifying employment relationships and has influenced numerous cases in the following years. In conclusion, the development of these tests has greatly contributed to the clear classification of employment status in tort law, providing individuals who have suffered harm or loss due to the wrongful acts of others with the opportunity for financial compensation. As we come to the end of this presentation, we hope you now have a better understanding of the role of employment status in tort law and its significance in seeking justice for those who have been wronged. Thank you for watching..