Intentional/negligent and unpermitted physical contact with a person’s body
Download 41.89 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Accumulation
| First element (non-natural use)- Rickards v. Lothian, overflow of water from the upper flow. Court held that the use must be a special use which brings increased danger to others.
Second element (things that can potentially cause damage if it escapes, it must have the characteristics that could make it dangerous). Mason v. Autoparts of England and AG v Corke, the owner of the land who allowed some caravan persons was held to be liable caused they caused damages to neighbour’s land. This case describes persons as things. Accumulation (a person who for his own purpose brings, collects or keep there. This means natural accumulation is not part) Dubling v. Ghana Housing Corporation. (D diverted rain water by doing gutters but P didn’t and flooded the place) Court held D wasn’t liable cause there was no accumulation. ESCAPE OF THE THING READ V LYONS-P was injured in an explosive factory Escape means from a place where the D has control or coccupation of the land PONTING V NOAKES (Horse reached into D’s land, ate poisonous leaves, horse died P sued under Rylands v Fletcher) The tree did not extend beyond the D’s land so there was not escape. Unless the thing escapes causes damage, you cannot sue under Rylands. JONES V FESTIMOG (Railway sparks set the hay ablaze on P’s land)damage was allowed CAPACITY
HALSEY V ESSO PETROLEUM P could recover for injury to his car though his car was on the high way and not the P’s land but in WELLER V FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE doubt was expressed as to a P with no proprietary interest can get damages for injury caused to his property. This be the current principle. TYPES OF INJURY RECOVERABLE
DEFENCE
Consent-P expressly or impliedly consented to the bringing of the thing on the land. PETERS V PRINCE OF WHALES THEATRE Act of third parties-if escape is caused by the deliberate and unforeseeable act of 3rd parties but if the defendant could have foreseen or prevented the act of the 3rd party and did not do it, he will be liable -RICKARDS V LOTHIAN BOX V JUBB Act of God -NICCHOLS V MARSLAND(thunderstorm caused flooding, this defence succeeded) GREENOCK CORPORATION V CALLIDONIAN RAILWAY COMPANY-Extraordinary and unprecedented rain fall was not an Act of God OCCUPIE9R’S LIABILITY Who is an occupier? Occupying or having control of a place. LAWFUL VISITORS Contractual visitors-contract between occupier and the visitor that the premises will be safe for the visitor. The courts will look at the contract to find a clause to see whether the occupier has such a duty. Otherwise, the duty will be inferred. FRANCES V COCKERALL ( P was injured by stand that collapsed improperly done by the D’s employees, D was liable because the duty was inferred). McCLEANAN V SEGARR, (P hotel guest, P was injured from fire, there was an implied duty on an inn keeper has made the premises safe from the contract that exist between the inn keeper and the lodger) However, this duty is to the extent of defects that can be reasonably detected. INVITEES INDEMAUR V JAMES, Duty to take reasonable care to prevent the invitee from encountering an unusual danger- is not usual associated with what the invitee is coming to do. Occupier’s liability is restricted to what he knew or ought to have known. GRIFITHS V SMITH (Managers invited the appellant for exhibition, floor collapsed. An invitee will be an invitee of the area within which he was invited and nothing beyond. When he goes beyond the ECONOMIC TORT PASSING OFF D poses his business as that of P to a 3rd party. REDDAWAY V BANHAM(p’s business was Camel hair beltings, D used the name on his goods, it is passing off) It can be either under the name and the product. WHITE HUDSON ASIAN ORG LTD, d put a different name on p’s product, it was held to be passing off. BOLINGER V COSTA BRAVA WINE CO LTD, D though named their wine Spanish champagne, it was passing off because the term champagne was associated with French wine. INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD
Malicious publication Calculated to produce damage Damage JOYCE V MOTOR SURVEY (P tenant of D, wrote to Post office and another firm that P no longer conducted his business in the premises) SHEPHERD V WAKEMAN( D represented that the P as married so she lost suitors)
Elements
Proof of malicious intent(D did not believe in what he was saying ) It must be false and about the P Publication Damage to P. Pecuniary loss. NEGLIGENCE Donoghue v Stevenson-Macmillan The person complained of must owe a duty to take care and that the complainant for prove damages for a breach of that duty. Actionable only on proof of damages. HAYNES V HARWOOD(D horses run and P got injured by stopping the horses who could have injured the people and children) Negligence in the air will not do by Greer LJ. It must be the neglect of some duty owed to the claimant. BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM Omission to do what a reasonable man having all those considerations would have refrained from doing Edusei J on elements oof negligence in ALHASSAN KOTOKOLI V MORO HAUSA It means more than heedless or careless conduct, it properly connotes a duty, breach and damages. DUTY OF CARE HEAVEN V PENDER , Brett M.R, a duty is owed to anyone who might reasonably be expected to suffer. DERRY V PEEK; duty of care arises if there was such proximity between persons or property of the persons that absence of care might occasion damage. A person owed a duty towards another if the law imposes such duty 3 circumstances Duty of care from a public calling e.g surgeon , lawyer Duty arising from public office. Duty arising from control of dangerous things : a. Looks at the nature of interest in tat object imposes a liability to protect others from such dangerous object b. the nature of injure DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (DUTY) Lord Atkin, using the neighbour principle he stated that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which are reasonably foreseeable will injure your neighbour Neighbour – person or persons who are so closely and directly and closely affected by your action that he ought to have them in contemplation. Download 41.89 Kb. Share with your friends:
|