20. Vicarious liability

This chapter examines the principle of vicarious liability, a form of secondary liability through which employers may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the torts of their employees, even though the employer themselves may be entirely blameless. The imposition of vicarious liability is one of the most important exceptions to the general approach of the common law whereby liability for any wrongdoing is imposed on, and only on, the wrongdoer(s). A defendant will not be vicariously liable unless the following conditions are met: (a) there is an employer–employee relationship between the defendant and the person for whose actions they are being held liable; (b) the employee committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment.

4. Special duty problems: omissions and acts of third parties

This chapter examines two separate but closely linked concepts of liability for omissions and for the actions of third parties. The first section considers when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants when the harm was the result of their omission, and the second explores the situations when a defendant may owe a duty in relation to the action(s) of a third party.

3. Duty of care: basic principles

This chapter traces the development of the duty of care. It considers the various general tests developed and used by the courts in order to establish when a duty of care is owed. In novel cases where there is no existing precedent, since the decision of the House of Lords in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990], the defendant will owe the claimant a duty of care only where there are positive reasons for them to do so (either because the circumstances of the case are very similar to another where a duty is already owed or because there is sufficient proximity and foreseeability between the parties and the harm suffered to make it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty).

19. Actions under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher

This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004].

17. Defamation

This chapter discusses the tort of defamation. This area of law has undergone significant legislative change following the enactment of the Defamation Act 2013. A defamatory statement can take two forms: it can either be spoken (slander) or written (libel). Only a false statement can be defamatory. It is up to the defendant to prove that the statement is true in order to avoid liability. Defences include honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest and privilege (where the statement is made in the performance of a duty). Remedies include an injunction to prevent publication, and a permanent injunction to prevent further publication and damages.

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, 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.

14. Breach of statutory duty

This chapter considers the tort of breach of statutory duty. Unlike the statutory duties contained in the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 or the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where liability arises directly according to the provisions of the statute itself, in a civil action in the tort of breach of statutory duty, liability arises indirectly where a statute imposes a duty but does not identify a civil remedy in the event of its breach. The tort is a combination of statute and the tort of negligence; the duty is defined by statute, while the action lies in the common law. It should be noted that while much of the case law arises in the employment context, the tort of breach of statutory duty extends beyond this.

13. Employers’ liability

This chapter discusses employers’ liability and, in particular, the non-delegable duty of care, which employers owe to their employees. It is typically said to have four components (building on Lord Wright’s statement in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd) comprising the provision of: a competent workforce; adequate material and equipment; a safe system of working (including effective supervision); and a safe workplace.

11. Occupiers’ liability

This chapter discusses occupiers’ liability, which deals with the risks posed, and harms caused, by dangerous places and buildings. In such cases, the occupier of the premises may be liable if they have not taken reasonable care to ensure that those entering their premises are safe. The general principles of negligence have been incorporated into, and modified by, statute in the form of the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984.

7. Special duty problems: economic loss

This chapter explains when and how the courts have found that a duty of care should be owed by defendants for purely economic loss. The discussions cover the meaning of ‘pure’ economic loss; exceptions to the exclusionary rule; claims for pure economic loss in negligence before Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]; and extended applications of the principles established in Hedley Byrne v Heller [1963].