Fault: The Three Causes Of Law In The Law Of Common Law

1896 Words8 Pages
Reynolds v Clarke (1726)2 Ld Raym 1399, Fortescue ruled that the difference would surmount to whether the consequence was immediate or occurred later, for which an action would otherwise not be brought. The rigidness in the distinction between trespass and case proved a problem. The solution lay in allowing the plaintiff to ‘waive’ the trespass and sue instead in case.in Williams v. Holland (1833)2 LJCP (NS) 190, the court of common pleas decided that this would be allowed if the plaintiff’s injury was occasioned by the ‘carelessness and negligence’ of the defendant, regardless of whether or not the act was immediate, so long as the act was unwillful. Thus one could bring an act whether the defendant produced immediate or consequential damage. Introduction According to the Duhiame law dictionary fault is a breach of duty or negligence and in some circumstances, the errors or omissions of others or things under a person’s control . The fault principle evolved from the writs to negligence and trespass at common law. The standard then was based on physical injury. Fault is an essential term in the common law of personal injury as it is a condition of liability under civil law regimes of civil responsibility. Oliver Wendell Holmes categorized tort law into three categories causes of action based on intentional conduct, causes of action based on unintentional conduct and causes of action based on strict liability. He argued that intentional and negligent torts were merely

More about Fault: The Three Causes Of Law In The Law Of Common Law

Open Document