Chapter 1
The basics
1.1 The function of tort law:
o Function= determine what legal rights we have against other people, free of charge and
without having to make special arrangements for them, and what remedies will be
available when those rights are violated.
o Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] -> case of a decomposed snail. Donoghue was taken ill and
brought a claim in tort against David Stevenson; the manufacturer. She had to show that
she had a right against Stevenson that he take care that the ginger beer in her bottle was
safe to drink. She could only have this right against him if they had engaged in a
contract; which wasn’t satisfied. Decision= 3/2 majority. This case established that a
consumer would not have to enter into a contract with a manufacturer if she wanted to
have a right that the manufacturer take care that his goods were safe to use. This is now
automatic.
o Tort law gives basic (legal) rights.
1.2 1.2 Rights and duties:
o Ways in which the word ‘right’ is used:
1. A has the right to sue for breach of contract.
2. What A has when the law imposes a legal duty on B to do x, and the law imposes
that duty on B for A’s benefit. A has a right against B to do x. Duty and right as two
sides of the same coin.
3. What A has when the law takes steps to protect some freedom or interest of A’s
from being interfered with by other people. Right to freedom of speech from the
HRA 1998 and the law grants you immunities/exemptions from certain legal rules
that would otherwise have the effect of allowing other people to unacceptably
interfere with your freedom of speech. E.g. if you defame someone who will then be
entitled to sue you for damages. But applying that rule across the board would have
the effect of hindering freedom of speech as people would be afraid of being sued. If
you say something against someone, if it holds true, that will always be a defence.
o Right used in the second sense ^
o Remedies in tort are based on the violation of a right that, not a right to.
o We have the right to, e.g. freedom of speech or bodily integrity, because tort law gives it
to us.
o Allen v Flood [1898] -> workers were working on the day to day-> no set contract.
Glengall Iron Company employed them on the day-to-day. Ironworkers objected to
working alongside Flood and Taylor as they had previously done some ironwork on
another ship, and the ironworkers regarded such work as exclusively theirs to do.
Ironworkers told the company that they would not work if Taylor and Flood were
employed. Flood and Taylor sued Allen. They won firstly and then in the CA. Taken to HL-
> 9 Law Lords-> 2 dissenting. Case illustrates how important it is that you can only sue
someone in tort for doing x if you can show that you had a right against them that they
not do x. <- argument was overlooked by the judges who simply allowed him to sue on
the basis that they had a right to trade that had been unjustifiably interfered with by
Allen. Real issue= whether Flood and Taylor had the right against Allen that he not
persuade the Company to not re-employ them the next day by threatening the
company. HL decided that Flood and Taylor had no such right against Allen. As the
The basics
1.1 The function of tort law:
o Function= determine what legal rights we have against other people, free of charge and
without having to make special arrangements for them, and what remedies will be
available when those rights are violated.
o Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] -> case of a decomposed snail. Donoghue was taken ill and
brought a claim in tort against David Stevenson; the manufacturer. She had to show that
she had a right against Stevenson that he take care that the ginger beer in her bottle was
safe to drink. She could only have this right against him if they had engaged in a
contract; which wasn’t satisfied. Decision= 3/2 majority. This case established that a
consumer would not have to enter into a contract with a manufacturer if she wanted to
have a right that the manufacturer take care that his goods were safe to use. This is now
automatic.
o Tort law gives basic (legal) rights.
1.2 1.2 Rights and duties:
o Ways in which the word ‘right’ is used:
1. A has the right to sue for breach of contract.
2. What A has when the law imposes a legal duty on B to do x, and the law imposes
that duty on B for A’s benefit. A has a right against B to do x. Duty and right as two
sides of the same coin.
3. What A has when the law takes steps to protect some freedom or interest of A’s
from being interfered with by other people. Right to freedom of speech from the
HRA 1998 and the law grants you immunities/exemptions from certain legal rules
that would otherwise have the effect of allowing other people to unacceptably
interfere with your freedom of speech. E.g. if you defame someone who will then be
entitled to sue you for damages. But applying that rule across the board would have
the effect of hindering freedom of speech as people would be afraid of being sued. If
you say something against someone, if it holds true, that will always be a defence.
o Right used in the second sense ^
o Remedies in tort are based on the violation of a right that, not a right to.
o We have the right to, e.g. freedom of speech or bodily integrity, because tort law gives it
to us.
o Allen v Flood [1898] -> workers were working on the day to day-> no set contract.
Glengall Iron Company employed them on the day-to-day. Ironworkers objected to
working alongside Flood and Taylor as they had previously done some ironwork on
another ship, and the ironworkers regarded such work as exclusively theirs to do.
Ironworkers told the company that they would not work if Taylor and Flood were
employed. Flood and Taylor sued Allen. They won firstly and then in the CA. Taken to HL-
> 9 Law Lords-> 2 dissenting. Case illustrates how important it is that you can only sue
someone in tort for doing x if you can show that you had a right against them that they
not do x. <- argument was overlooked by the judges who simply allowed him to sue on
the basis that they had a right to trade that had been unjustifiably interfered with by
Allen. Real issue= whether Flood and Taylor had the right against Allen that he not
persuade the Company to not re-employ them the next day by threatening the
company. HL decided that Flood and Taylor had no such right against Allen. As the
