General Principles of Liability in Tort
1. Wrongful Act or Omission
A person must have committed a wrongful act or omission, which violates a legal duty. This can include acts like assault, defamation, negligence, or nuisance.
Key Elements:
The act must be wrongful in law (not just morally wrong).
There must be an invasion of a legally protected right.
Case Law:
Ashby v. White (1703)
Facts: A qualified voter was wrongfully denied the right to vote by a public officer.
Held: Even though the vote would not have changed the result, the denial of a legal right was actionable.
Principle: Violation of a legal right is sufficient to give rise to liability, even without actual damage.
2. Legal Duty Owed to the Plaintiff
There must be a legal duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Key Elements:
The duty must be recognized by law.
It must be owed to the specific claimant or to a class of persons including them.
Case Law:
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)
Facts: A woman became ill after drinking a ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. She sued the manufacturer.
Held: The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Principle: A person owes a duty of care to their “neighbour”—those who are closely and directly affected by their act.
3. Breach of Duty
There must be a breach of the legal duty—the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.
Key Considerations:
Standard of care expected.
Foreseeability of harm.
Case Law:
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)
Facts: The defendant's water pipes burst during an unusually severe frost and flooded the plaintiff’s property.
Held: The defendants were not liable as the frost was extraordinary and not foreseeable.
Principle: Negligence is doing something a reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something a reasonable person would do.
4. Causation
There must be a causal connection between the defendant's act and the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
Key Elements:
Factual causation – “But for” test: But for the defendant’s act, would the harm have occurred?
Legal causation – Whether the damage was a reasonably foreseeable result.
Case Law:
Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)
Facts: A man died from arsenic poisoning after being turned away from a hospital. It was found that even if he had received medical attention, he would have died.
Held: There was no causation because the death would have occurred anyway.
Principle: No liability if the defendant's act did not actually cause the harm.
5. Damage or Injury
The plaintiff must have suffered some actual harm, whether:
Physical injury,
Financial loss,
Emotional distress, or
Violation of rights (in some cases, actual damage isn't needed).
Case Law:
Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410)
Facts: A teacher started a rival school, leading to financial loss for the original school.
Held: There was no tort as the act was lawful even if it caused damage.
Principle: Damage alone is not sufficient; the act must be legally wrongful.
However:
Injuria sine damno – Legal injury without actual damage is actionable.
Damnum sine injuria – Actual damage without legal injury is not actionable.
6. No Valid Defenses
Liability can be avoided if the defendant has a valid defense, such as:
Volenti non fit injuria (consent to the risk),
Act of God,
Inevitable accident,
Private defense, or
Statutory authority.
Case Law:
Stanley v. Powell (1891)
Facts: A man accidentally shot another while pheasant shooting. The injury was purely accidental.
Held: No liability as it was an inevitable accident.
Principle: A person is not liable if the harm was not foreseeable and all care was taken.
Conclusion
The general principles of liability in tort involve a combination of the following:
| Element | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Wrongful act | Must be unlawful |
| Duty of care | Legal duty owed to claimant |
| Breach of duty | Failure to meet standard of care |
| Causation | Direct connection between act and harm |
| Damage | Actual loss or injury (sometimes presumed) |
| No valid defenses | Defendant cannot avoid liability via legal excuse |
These principles ensure that tort law maintains a balance between protecting individuals’ rights and not imposing excessive liability for every harm.
RELATED Blog
0 comments