Ordinary Negligence and Occupiers’ Liability – Comparing Principles. Based on the discussion above, we can retrieve the key features of both ordinary negligence and occupier’s liability. In essence, the ordinary idea of negligence is when you unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your action could cause harm. The plaintiff must establishes three factors to constitute negligence. Firstly, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.
Scope of liability is divided into two parts; foreseeability, which excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the tortious act that were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent; and superseding cause, which is an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability. The contributory negligence is the most common defense to negligence. It’s when the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for their own protection. This defense results in preventing the plaintiff from recovering any type of reward. Comparative negligence allows the damages to be divided between both the plaintiff and the defendant to their degree of
Nominal damages, given although there is no harm at all, or merely a slight one, may also be awarded in an assault and battery action. Punitive Damages are often given when the offense was committed maliciously to punish the defendant for the wrongful act and to deter others from engaging in similar acts in the future. If a defendant is found criminally liable, the punishment is imprisonment, a fine, or both. CRITISISM In assault intention is necessary so even if the defendant commits a crime and does not have an intent to harm the victim, the individual cannot be guilty of the offense. SUGGESTIONS The law must then balance the degree of the risk and the likelihood of injury occurring, against the expense and difficulty of taking precautions both in assault and battery more precautiously.
TORTS: A tort is a wrongful act that injures or interferes with another's person or property. A tort case is a civil court proceeding. The accused is the "defendant" and the victim is a "plaintiff." The charges are brought by the plaintiff. If the defendant loses, the defendant has to pay damages to the plaintiff.
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 .
A tort can be defined as a civil wrong. Examples of torts are trespass, nuisance, negligence and defamation. One of the main examples of tort law is negligence. Negligence is to breach a duty of care or to fall below a standard of behaviour. This standard of behaviour can also be said as falling below the standard of care of the ‘reasonable careful man’.
Before moving further, it is important to understand the term ‘negligence’ with reference to tortious liability. “Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury
Contributory Negligence When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence. An accident would be said to be the result of contributory negligence if “the proximate cause of the accident is the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care or in defiance of duty or obligation on the part of the complaining party (the plaintiff) has conjoined with the other party’s negligence.” The Supreme Court in Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, A.I.R. 2003 SC 4182 Where a mischance is because of carelessness of both sides, considerably there would be contributory carelessness and both
(ii) Breach of duty. (iii) Damage- causation and remoteness. 2.1. DUTY OF CARE: Duty of care refers to the circumstances and relationships which the law recognizes as giving rise to a legal duty to take care. A failure to take such care can result in the defendant being liable to pay damages to the injured party or who has suffered loss as a result of their breach
There might not be a fault per se but if an activity is so dangerous that it may constitute constant danger to person and property, the person who performs such an activity must be liable even if his or her fault is not present. In such cases the law might deal with this in two ways, one is to prohibit such activities, and the second is to permit them to be carried out in accordance with statutory provisions laying down safety measures. In such situations, those who undertook such activities have to compensate for any damage caused, regardless of any negligence on their part. Negligence is based on foreseeable harm, which means that harm could be avoided by