On elevating the reliability of the hygienic assessment of water quality of natural sources of drinking water supply

Introduction. As new toxic substances accumulate in water bodies, improving the reliability of the hygienic assessment of water quality is put forward in the first place. For the correct solution of this problem, it is relevant to use the direct comparison of deterministic quantities such as the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) of toxic pollutants with the result of its measurements (C) and methods of approach for evaluating the results of research. Material and methods. To improve the reliability of hygienic assessment of water quality in the proposed method tolerance control, envisaging the elucidation of the implementation type inequality and estimation of the probability of this event: where is the risk of false imprisonment. The number of concurrent measurements of water quality parameters guaranteeing an acceptable level of risk of error of research results is established by the authority of sanitary-epidemiological supervision, receiving a limited level of tolerable error taking into account the possibilities of metrological assurance of conformity assessment/quality of water and its normative level. Results. It is shown that in cases when the compliance of controlled safety indicators is evaluated, the values of which are limited on both sides, as is the case when studying the physiological usefulness of water, it is necessary to establish a two-way range of values of the permissible probability of violation of the specified requirements. Conclusion. First installed: the rule “if it is impossible to argue that controlled water quality indicators do not meet hygienic requirements. Thus requirements are met” is not equivalent to the law “if the indicators meet the requirements, then they can’t be inappropriate”, which more reliably indicates compliance with these requirements.

13. Intentional interferences with the person

This chapter considers intentional interferences with the person, including the so-called trespass to the person torts, the tort in Wilkinson v Downton and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Trespass is an ancient set of wrongs which mainly deals with the direct, and usually intentional, invasion of a claimant’s interest in his person, his land or his goods. It is the right itself which is protected, and not just the freedom from resulting damage, and much of the law of trespass is the basis of civil liberties today. This chapter considers the torts of assault, battery and false imprisonment, together with various defences. The principal use today of these torts relates not so much to recovery of compensation but to the establishment of a right, or a recognition that the defendant acted unlawfully. The chapter then considers the tort in Wilkinson v Downton which provides a remedy in cases of indirect intentional infliction of distress and the statutory tort of harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997).

11. Intentional torts

This chapter discusses both common law and statute in relation to the torts of trespass to the person: battery, assault, and false imprisonment. These torts have three common characteristics: they are the result of intentional actions, take the form of direct harm, and are actionable per se, that is, without proof of damage. An additional intentional tort is derived from Wilkinson v Downton (1897), the wilful infliction of physical harm upon the claimant by indirect means. This category of intentional harm is also augmented by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Defences to the intentional torts are also discussed.

15. Intentional interferences with the person

This chapter examines intentional interferences with the person, including the torts comprising trespass to the person—battery, assault and false imprisonment—the tort in Wilkinson v Downton [1897], and the statutory tort of harassment. The trespass to the person torts seek to protect an individual against an infringement of their personal or bodily integrity, that is, against the infliction, or fearing the infliction, of unlawful force (battery and assault) and the unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom of movement (false imprisonment). The three trespass to the person torts have the same characteristics: the defendant must have intended both the conduct itself and consequences of their action; the defendant’s action must cause direct and immediate harm; and they are actionable per se, that is, without proof of loss. The chapter also considers the tort in Wilkinson v Downton, which provides a remedy for physical and psychiatric harm deliberately caused by a false statement, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which imposes both civil and criminal liability for harassing conduct.

The Booster, the Snitch, and the Bogus False Arrest Victim: Retailers and Shoplifters in Interwar America and Britain

This article examines shoplifting from department stores and variety chain stores in interwar America and Britain. Patterns of shoplifting show strong similarities—with stores facing a predominantly female, and disproportionately affluent, army of amateur shoplifters, together with a much smaller corps of professional thieves. The incidence and characteristics of shoplifting are explored, together with the stores’ legal and other strategies to deter shoplifters. The article also examines why apparently prosperous women had the highest propensity to shoplift. Britain and the United States had strong commonalities in terms of open display retail formats, the methods used to deter shoplifters, and typical legal penalties. However, America had one critical difference—the much higher incidence of a type of store criminal who specialized in deliberately getting apprehended in order to sue the store for false arrest and, often, false imprisonment, slander, and a range of related charges. This reflected the higher damages typically awarded by U.S. courts compared with their British counterparts, inflated by local antagonism to retail corporations, together with a system—at least in some U.S. cities—whereby corrupt lawyers and judges connived in shoplifting acquittals that paved the way for lawsuits.

10. Trespass to the person and related torts

This chapter examines the protection afforded by tort law against trespass to the person and infringements of personal interests. It discusses the elements of the torts of battery, assault, and false imprisonment, which all derive from medieval tort law and are characterised by the need for direct interference (but there is no need to prove damage because the torts are actionable per se). Compensation in these cases is for damage suffered and/or the interference with what are considered to be important dignitary interests. The chapter considers also the newer tort of intentional infliction of physical harm and the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997.

Re-imagining the Dignitary Torts

In the article, we make three claims. First, we argue that a large number of what are traditionally seen as separate torts are, at their core, all about affronts to the dignity of the victim. These include offensive battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy, some nuisances, and abuse of process (malicious prosecution). These torts do not involve direct physical harm but, rather, emotional distress from having your dignity attacked. Second, we argue that as these torts have developed inside of their own doctrinal silos, there are important differences among the laws governing them. Third, we argue that these differences are not justified and that it would be better to create a consistent tort approach to dignitary harm: tort recovery should lie for injuries resulting from wrongful conduct that is highly offensive and causes more than minor harm. This, it turns out, is the standard that currently applies in a majority of jurisdictions for privacy invasions. If more widely adopted, this standard would, for example, far more easily allow recovery for nasty verbal sexual (or other) harassment, since intentional infliction of emotional distress currently requires a much stronger showing. At the same time, it would preclude recovery for minor physical touchings that technically now qualify as offensive battery. We think this achieves the balance much better.

France and the United Kingdom

This chapter compares the respective answers of the English and French systems of administrative liability within a wider comparative study that focuses on outcomes. The chapter is in three parts. It first looks briefly at the constitutional and cultural framework in which the rules operate. In France, we find a separate system of administrative courts which handle all questions relating to the administration, including liability, and which have built a sophisticated public law system of non-contractual liability. In the UK, where all questions of liability go to the ‘ordinary’ civil courts, the law is uncodified, and there are gaps in the liability principles. The chapter then looks at basic principles. In France, where the dominant principle is faute de service public, the courts also acknowledge a no-fault principle. In the UK, the strongest form of redress is strict liability for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, but the dominant principle is negligence, and a public authority must owe a duty of care to the claimant to be held liable. In the final part, the chapter answers specific liability questions, making the point that it is often hard to get redress for economic loss. Claimants often fail to get redress for wrongful failures to grant licences or exercise a discretion or statutory power.