Tort law Questions with Correct Answers Rated A+

Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479 - D was a business which used aircraft to take aerial photographs of people's homes without their permission. D then offered to sell those photographs to the homeowners. Liable to the homeowners in the tort of trespass to land? Held: rights of an owner to the airspace above their property are restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land. Adams v Ursell [1913] 1 Ch 269 - A fish and chip shop was responsible for the smell of deep fried food in a residential street. Neighbour claimed the tort of nuisance to have it closed down. Held: the interests of ordinary residents trumped those of the owner of the business and its customers. Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 - A learner driver crashed into a lamp post injuring the only passenger, a family friend, who was teaching her to drive. The passenger had control of the gearstick and handbrake and the learner driver was steering the car. Passenger sued the learner driver in the tort of negligence. For reasons of consistence and clarity all road users must adhere to the same standard of care irrespective of driving experience, so learner driving found liable in the tort of negligence. Policy consideration: insurance is compulsory for all motorist, so compensation is available for the passenger. M'Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) - the concept of a duty of care was expanded in a way which addressed the development of (then) modern packaging and distribution methods for consumer goods. Before that the courts had not recognised that a duty to take reasonable care in the manufacturing of products could extend beyond contractual relationships. slander - There is a need to prove damage; the protected interest is that of reputation; and the wrongdoing consists of spoken words or gestures which are defamatory (i.e. untrue and with the effect of lowering the reputation of the victim) Product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 - This is a statutory tort; there is a need to prove damage; the protected interests are personal (death and personal injury) and property (damage to property); the liability is strict and the wrongdoing concerns a defective product. assault - There is no need to prove damage; the wrongdoing causes someone to be put in fear of immediate physical harm (actual physical harm is a different tort); and the protected interest is that of bodily integrity. Action for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. - This is a statutory tort; there is no need to prove damage; and the standard of liability is constructive knowledge of harassment. the traditional 'legal formulae' approach, - the requirements of different torts are applied to case facts. 'correlative analysis' - Peter Cane: the relationship between the victim of the tortious conduct and the perpetrator or injurer: aim is to understand and explain the law of tort as a system of ethical principles of personal responsibility or, in other words, a system of precepts about how people may, ought and ought not to behave in their dealings with others. Strict liability torts - Do not require a claimant to prove a tortfeasor was at fault. Strict liability is a concept rooted in the notion that the general public benefits when liability is imposed on those who engaged in certain activities that result in harm to another party, even if the activities were undertaken in the most careful manner possible (without negligence). Examples: the action in Rylands v Fletcher, publication of private information and images, product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, breach of statutory duty, conversion. Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 - Person who, for own purposes, brings onto land/collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, keeps it at his peril and is answerable for all damages arising i.e. natural consequences of its escape tortfeasor - One who commits a tort, the legal or natural person whose wrongdoing has caused the tort and when an action is brought, is often the defendant. vicariously liable - A principal is legally responsible for the actions of his or her agent if the agent is acting within the scope of his or her employment- that is, doing what the principal has directed the agent to do. Employers are held liable for the tortious acts of their employees or agents and insurance companies are held liable for the tortious acts of those they insure (s4 Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 or 2010). defendant, (Scotland) defender - an individual or group being sued or charged with a crime plaintiff (before 1999), claimant, pursuer (Scotland) - A person or party filing a lawsuit tort, delict (Scotland) - A civil wrong / wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor. Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 - writ of trespass and writ of trespass on the case abolished Reynolds v Clarke (1725) 1 Str 634 - sets out the distinction between a wrong caused by a direct and forcible action (trespass) and a wrong caused as a consequence of an action (trespass on the case) tortious liability - arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages. Assault - An intentional or reckless act that causes someone to be put in fear of immediate physical harm. Actual physical contact is not necessary battery - The intentional or reckless application of physical force to another person Vindication - looks back to the harm that took place by establishing the facts and apportion blame or fault corrective justice - right the wrong that has taken place. compensation - makes amend for the wrong, usually achieved by an award of damages (other remedies include an injunction and an order for specific restitution of property). damages in tort - The purpose is to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not taken place. The loss is shifted from the person injured by the tort to the person who is responsible for it.