Tort law OCR

• Private nuisance


  Unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of another's land
• Private nuisance


  • Claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land being interfered with
  • Defendant can be the creator, occupier or the owner of the land from which the interference comes from
  • Based on an indirect interference, such as smoke, noise, tree roots, not a direct trespass by the defendant
  • Interference must be unreasonable
• Factors considered by the court when deciding if interference is unreasonable

  • Location
  • Duration
  • Time of day
  • Malice
  • Social factors
• In Robinson v Kilvert, the court said that the C's brown paper was unusually sensitive and as the interference would not amount to a nuisance to someone without this sensitivity the claim failed
• Defences to private nuisance

  • Volenti
  • Prescription
  • Statutory authority
• Occupiers' Liability Act 1957

  Covers liability of the occupiers of land and building (premises) for injury to people or their property whilst using the premises lawfully
• Occupier


  Has sufficient control over the entry/non-entry to premises
• Lawful visitors


  • Express (invitee)
  • Implied (licensee)
• Premises


  Any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
• Duty under OLA 1957


  To take care to see that the visitor is reasonably safe when using the premises for the purpose for which they have been invited or permitted to be there
• Special cases under OLA 1957


  • Children
  • Specialists
  • Contractors
• Remedies, types of damage, and types of loss may be appropriate
• Defences to OLA 1957

  • Warnings
  • Exclusions
  • Volenti
  • Contributory negligence
• Occupiers' Liability Act 1984

  Covers liability of occupiers for trespassers who suffer injury due to the dangerous state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them
• Trespasser under OLA 1984


  • Someone who goes on to land without permission, and the occupier either objects to their presence or does not know of their presence on the land
  • Occupier has sufficient control over entry/non-entry to premises
  • Occupier owes a duty to a trespasser if they knew of the danger/had reasonable grounds to believe it existed, knew/believed that a trespasser may come to the danger, and, in all the circumstances it was reasonable to expect D to offer some protection against the trespasser being injured by this danger
  • Standard of duty is that the occupier should take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent injury to the trespasser
• For successful claims under OLA 1984, trespassers may seek damages for death or personal injury, but not for damage to property
• Negligence


  Failing to do something which the reasonable person would do, or doing something which the reasonable person would not do
• Negligence


  • There must be a duty of care
  • The duty must be breached, which is decided by setting the standard of care
  • D's act must cause resultant damage
• Factors used to decide breach of duty in negligence

  • Magnitude of risk
  • Cost and practicality of precautions
  • Any special characteristics of C
• Causation in negligence


  • Defendant must be the factual cause using the 'but for' test, and the legal cause meaning he has materially contributed to the damage with no breaks in the chain
  • Damage caused must not be too remote, meaning the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
• Rylands v Fletcher


  If a person brings on to his land something likely to do mischief, keeps it at his peril and if it escapes and causes damage, they are liable for it, whether he was negligent or not
• Rylands v Fletcher


  • The thing that escaped must have been brought on to the land
  • It must be a thing likely to do mischief if it escaped
  • It must be classed as a non-natural use of land
  • The thing must have escaped and caused damage
  • The type of damage caused must have been foreseeable at the time of accumulation
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher


  • Act of a stranger
  • Act of God. Volenti. Fault of C. Statutory Authority
• Vicarious liability


  A person can be held legally liable for the torts committed by someone else
• Employer


  • Right to hire and fire
  • Pays wages
• If employee loaned out to a 3rd party


  It is assumed original employer is liable (Mersey Docks v Coggins)
• Employee


  • Agrees to work for payment
  • Agrees to be subject to the employer's control (impliedly or expressly)
  • Other terms of the contract are consistent with the contract of service (employer pays for materials, provides premises and additional staff, provides employee with tools and equipment)
• The employer will be liable only for torts committed by the employee in the 'course of their employment'
• Employer liable for an authorised act done carelessly


  (Century Insurance Northern Road Transport)
• Employer liable if the employee merely adopts an improper method of performing the duties they were employed for

  (Limpus v London General Omnibus)
• Employer liable if the employee commits an intentional wrongful act closely connected to their employment

  (Lister v Hesley Hall)
• Employer unlikely to be liable for acts of employee done maliciously, for their own benefit, or outside the scope of employment