12. Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

This chapter discusses the law of nuisance. ‘Nuisance’ relates to three very different actions: private nuisance, public nuisance, and statutory nuisance. All three are land-related torts, occurring indirectly, and often concern neighbour disputes and environmental wrongs. Unlike negligence, in nuisance the law is concerned less with the nature of the defendant’s conduct than with its effect upon the claimant. Private nuisance must have an element of continuation and damages will not be recoverable for physical injury. The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) established a new tort which provided for strict liability of defendants in certain nuisance-related situations.

10. Product liability

This chapter discusses the law on product liability. Common law product liability is based upon the law of negligence. Beginning with the narrow ratio in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), it further developed the concept of intermediate examination in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936). The relevant statute is the Consumer Protection Act 1987, passed in response to a European Union Directive. This introduces strict liability, when a defective product causes damage. The CPA establishes a hierarchy of possible defendants beginning with the producer. Defences under the CPA include the ‘development risks’ defence to protect scientific and technical innovation. If damage relates to quality or value, the only remedy will be in contract.

3. Duty of care: further issues

This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.

17. Remedies and principles of compensation

This chapter discusses the main remedies for torts: damages and injunctions. In tort, damages are primarily compensatory and are intended to restore to the claimant what he has lost. Damages may be punitive or aggravated. They may be awarded in a lump sum, or in periodic or provisional form, and may be subject to deductions. An injunction is an order of the court requiring the defendant either to do something (mandatory injunction) or to cease doing something (prohibitory injunction). Interim injunctions anticipate trial of the full issue. Upon death, a remedy may be obtainable on behalf of the deceased or his dependents.

16. Defences and limitation

This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.

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.

7. Causation in fact

This chapter discusses the law on causation in fact. This is a matter of historical fact and can be addressed initially by the ‘but-for’ test. However, the but-for test is inadequate to establish causation in a number of different situations: unknown causes, cumulative causes, and consecutive causes and those in which the test produces an illogical or unjust outcome. It is an area in which recent policy-driven decisions have revived the approach of ‘material increase in risk’, as in the asbestos case of Fairchild v Glenhaven. Allocation of liability has been addressed in the Compensation Act 2006, s 3.

6. Breach of duty: the standard of care

This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.

13. Occupiers’ liability

This chapter discusses the law on occupiers’ liability, a form of negligence liability which was governed previously by the common law and now by statute law. The key statutes are the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 which governs duty to lawful visitors and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, regarding non-visitors, or trespassers. In determining to whom the duty is owed, it is necessary to identify the status of the entrant onto land. To determine who owes the duty as occupier, the main criterion is control of the land. Exclusion of liability and defences are included.

5. Psychiatric injury

This chapter discusses the law on psychiatric injury. Psychiatric injury which is not derived from physical injury is a type of damage which is not always recoverable in negligence. It is an aspect of duty of care. The range of allowable actions has evolved through developments of control mechanisms in the common law, often policy based. The legal distinction between the primary and secondary victim is explored, as are more atypical situations. The four key cases are McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983), Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1991), Page v Smith (1995), and White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (1999).