DOCSLIB.ORG

Torts - Iyioha

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Torts - Iyioha 2016- 2017 Torts - Iyioha 1.0 Introduction to Torts ................................................................................................................................................5 2.0 Nuisance .........................................................................................................................................................................5 2.1 Protecting Interests in Land ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Appleby v Erie Tobacco Co. (1910) ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Rogers v Elliott (1888) ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v 4525 Inc. .................................................................................................................................. 7 Bamford v Turnley (1862) ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Miller v Jackson (1977) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Shifting Accident Costs of Activities .................................................................................................................................... 8 Tock v St John’s Metropolitan Area Board (1989)................................................................................................................. 8 Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v Ontario (Transportation) (2013) ................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Defences to Nuisance Action: ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 Individual vs Community Utility .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Black v Can Copper Co. (1917) .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Bottom v Ont Leaf Tobacco Co. (1935) ................................................................................................................................. 9 Miller v Jackson ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Canada Paper co v Brown (1922) ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Spur Industries v Del E Webb Development Co. (1972) ........................................................................................................ 9 3.0 Intentional Torts ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Assault ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Battery ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Babiuk v Trann (2005) ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Malette v Shulman (1990) ................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 False Imprisonment........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Martin v Berends (1989) ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Malicious Prosecution: ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.5 Trespass to Chattels: ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 384238 Ont. Ltd. v Can. (1983) ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.6 Detinue .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 3.7 Conversion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Bolwell Fibreglass ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Penfolds Wines Pty. Ltd. v Elliott ......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.8 Trespass to Land................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Turner v Thorne & Thorne ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Mann v. Saulnier (1959 NB C.A.) ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada Inc. [2005] .......................................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Defences to Intentional Torts .............................................................................................................................. 14 4.1 Consent: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Norberg v Wynrib ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 E (Mrs.) v Eve (1986) ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 In Re B (1987) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Reibl v Hughes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Hollis v Dow Corning Corp (1995) ....................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Self Defence ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Babiuk v. Trann ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Legal authority .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 4.4 Provocation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.5 Necessity: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 2 5.0 Strict Liability ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Rylands v. Fletcher .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Rickards v. Lothian .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Read v. Lyons ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 5.1 Test for liability under Rylands v. Fletcher: ....................................................................................................................... 18 5.2 Defences: (THIS WILL BE ON EXAM) ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Self-Help and the Nature of Property
    2005] SELF-HELP AND THE NATURE OF PROPERTY Henry E. Smith* I. INTRODUCTION Self-help and the law's response to it lie at the center of a system of property rights. This has become all the more apparent as questions of property - and whether to employ property law at all - have arisen in the digital world. In this Article, I argue that self-help comes in different varie- ties corresponding to different strategies for delineating entitlements. Like property entitlements more generally, the law does not regulate self-help in as detailed a fashion as it could if delineation were costless. Both property entitlements and self-help show far less symmetry and a far lesser degree of tailoring than we would expect in a world in which we did not face delinea- tion costs of devising, describing, communicating, and enforcing the con- tent of rights and privileges to use resources. Part II of this Article sets the stage for an analysis of self-help by showing how the law-and-economics treatment of entitlements leads one to expect greater symmetry in entitlements than is to be found in the law. In the commentary, rights to be free from pollution are paired conceptually with so-called rights to pollute, but the law does not provide for free stand- ing rights - as opposed to occasional privileges - to pollute. Part III shows how these apparent anomalies receive an explanation on a theory of enti- tlement delineation that accounts broadly for costs as well as benefits. Roughly speaking, the law faces a choice among strategies for delineating entitlements, and in the choice among these strategies, the benefits of mul- tiple uses of resources must be traded off against the costs of delineation and enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 4 The Scholarship of Richard A. Epstein Summer 2009 Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age Catherine M. Sharkey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Sharkey, Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 677 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss4/2 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sharkey: Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age TRESPASS TORTS AND SELF-HELP FOR AN ELECTRONIC AGE Catherine M. Sharkey* INTRODU CTION ................................................................................................................ 678 1. SELF-HELP: THE MISSING THIRD REMEDY .......................................................... 679 II. CONCEPTUALIZING SELF-HELP IN CYBERTRESPASS DOCTRINE ........................... 684 A. Self-Help in Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case ................................................... 684 1. Threshold Prerequisite to Invoke Legal Process ................................... 684 2. Liability for Evasion of Self-Help ........................................................ 687 B. Self-Help "Opt-Out" as Affirmative Defense ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wrongful Life in the Age of CRISPR-CAS: Using the Legal Fiction of “The Conceptual Being” to Redress Wrongful Gamete Manipulation
    Wrongful Life in the Age of CRISPR-CAS: Using the Legal Fiction of “The Conceptual Being” to Redress Wrongful Gamete Manipulation Barbara Pfeffer Billauer J.D., M.A., Ph.D.* ABSTRACT Virtually all ‘wrongful life’ actions (claims brought by children for pre-birth injuries) are denied. The basis for this doctrine pivots around the refusal to allow recompense for actions which cause harm, but also result in the child’s birth. We, therefore, are faced with a legal lacuna, where children suffering serious harms as a result of the latest reproductive technologies are legal orphans. This Article details the avenues of potential harm caused by modern reproductive technologies, which I call wrongful genetic manipulation (WGM), where the injured child would have no right of action. To address this void, I create a novel remedy via a legal fiction, “the conceptual being,” which would enable these children to bypass current restrictions and claim an expanded class of damages, including pain and suffering, emotional injury, and unjust enrichment. *About the author: Dr. Billauer holds academic appointments at the University of Porto, Portugal, where she is a Professor in the International Program on Bioethics, and the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., where she is a research Professor of Scientific Statecraft. She has advanced degrees in law and public health and sits on the UNESCO committee currently compiling a Casebook on Bioethics. She has also edited Professor Amnon Carmi’s Casebook on Bioethics for Judges. Prior to transitioning to academia, Dr. Billauer practiced medical malpractice, toxic tort, and products liability law.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law Notes
    https://www.uninote.co.uk/vendor/kings-llb-student/ All rights reserved to the author. Tort Law Notes Part 1 out of 2 [127 pages] Contents: Intentional Interferences with the Person + Defences Occupiers’ Liability Nuisance + The Tort in Rylands v Fletcher Remedies Vicarious Liability 1 https://www.uninote.co.uk/vendor/kings-llb-student/ All rights reserved to the author. Intentional Interferences with the Person Who can sue whom, in what tort, for what damage and are there any defences? Causes of Action Trespass to the person is an intentional tort = the conduct must be deliberate. It is the act and not the injury that has to be intentional, D does not need to intend to commit a tort or cause harm. Trespass is actionable without proof of damage. Letang v Cooper [1965] QB 232 Patch of land/grass used as car park for a hotel. Claimant sunbathing on that patch, car ran over her. Suffered severe injuries to her legs, she sued. It mattered whether she was bringing her claim in the tort of battery and in the tort of negligence because of the limitation period. This no longer applies because of new statute (private law 6 years, personal injury 3 years). Lord Denning: “We divide the causes of action now according as the defendant did the injury intentionally or unintentionally.” Intentionally = trespass to the person Unintentionally = negligence ASSAULT An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person. Assault protects the right not to be put in fear of unlawful invasion of our integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Children As a Blessing: a Reason for Undermining Autonomy?
    Children as a Blessing: A Reason for Undermining Autonomy? Ffion Davies A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Degree of Batchelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago. October 2018. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Jesse Wall, for your wisdom, guidance and honesty in supervising this dissertation; To my parents, Helen and Paul, for your never-ending support and belief in my abilities; To the Trio, because I would not have made it through law school without you; And to Harry, because if it was not for your support, I would still be sitting in my room trying to memorise my first-year legislation essays. 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 PART A: THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................... 7 Chapter I: United Kingdom .......................................................................................................... 7 A. Tort Law and Medical Negligence ....................................................................................................... 7 1. McFarlane v Tayside Health Board ................................................................................................................. 7 2. Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust ................................................................. 13 3. Rees v Darlington Health Board NH Trust....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rights and Responsibilities in Wrongful Birth / Wrongful Life Cases
    2006 Forum: Rights and Responsibilities 233 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN WRONGFUL BIRTH / WRONGFUL LIFE CASES DAVID HIRSCH∗ I INTRODUCTION The parents of a child born as a consequence of medical negligence are entitled, in a ‘wrongful birth’ claim, to damages for the inconvenience and costs of the birth of even a normal, healthy child. But a disabled child born into a life of suffering and need as a consequence of medical negligence is entitled to nothing in a ‘wrongful life’ claim because there is no injury in the eyes of the law. Inconceivable as these propositions may appear, this is the law in Australia as laid down by the High Court.1 How did this situation come about? And what does it say about the rights and responsibilities of parents, their children and doctors in this country? II BACKGROUND Medical errors that lead to the ‘wrongful’ birth of a child may arise in many ways. Prior to conception a female sterilization procedure or a vasectomy may be negligently performed; or a contraceptive device may be incorrectly implanted; or mistaken advice may be given in genetic counselling or testing that leads parents to conceive a child where, had the correct advice been given, they would not have. After conception, a routine blood test or antenatal ultrasound or amniocentesis can be improperly reported, leading to false assurances that the foetus is not at risk of a congenital abnormality and depriving parents of an opportunity to terminate the pregnancy. As the medical industry finds new and innovative ways to cater for our right to reproductive freedom – the right to choose whether and when to be parents – the opportunities for medical errors and consequential lawsuits are sure to increase.
    [Show full text]
  • Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965)
    Law 580: Torts Thursday, November 12, 2015 November 10, 11, 12: • Casebook pages 813-843, 866-884 • Oral Argument #4 on Tuesday November 10 Chapter 11: Property Torts and Ultrahazardous Activities II. Property Torts D. Consent III. Ultrahazardous (Abnormally Dangerous) Activites Trespass to Land Prima Facie Case 1. Volitional Act 2. Intent to cause entry onto land 3. Entry onto plaintiff’s land Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) § 158. Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land. One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or (b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove. Affirmative Defenses: 1. Consent 2. Self Defense 3. Defense of Others 4. Defense of Property 5. Recapture of Property 6. Necessity Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation (Minn 1910) p. 824 1. Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What’s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? “We are satisfied that the character of the storm was such that it would have been highly imprudent for the master of the Reynolds to have attempted to leave the dock or to have permitted his vessel to drift a way from it. …Nothing more was demanded of them than ordinary prudence and care, and the record in this case fully sustains the contention of the appellant that, in holding the vessel fast to the dock, those in charge of her exercised good judgment and prudent seamanship.
    [Show full text]
  • Wrongful Birth Or Wrongful Law: a Critical Analysis of the Availability of Child-Rearing Costs After Failed Sterilisation Operations in New Zealand
    WRONGFUL BIRTH OR WRONGFUL LAW: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CHILD-REARING COSTS AFTER FAILED STERILISATION OPERATIONS IN NEW ZEALAND Briana Walley* Abstract This article explores the availability of child-rearing costs after failed sterilisation operations in New Zealand. It is divided into three main sections. First, how the accident compensation scheme has dealt with the issue thus far. This article discusses how New Zealand case law and the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides inadequate cover for parents. Second, this article discusses how New Zealand courts should respond to a common law claim for child-rearing costs. This involves an analysis of the law in the United Kingdom and Australia. This article argues that, while allowing full child-rearing costs is the preferred option, the common law in general is not the ideal place for failed sterilisation cases to be determined. Finally, this article concludes that New Zealand should utilise and expand its pre-existing accident compensation scheme to encompass claims for child- rearing costs following failed sterilisation operations. I. Introduction The English Court of Appeal once stated that:1 … a healthy baby is so lovely a creature that I can well understand the reaction of one who asks: how could its birth possibly give rise to an action for damages? However, when a person has undergone a sterilisation operation, the birth of a child is exactly what they were trying to avoid. When this operation * LLB(hons)/BA University of Canterbury 2017, Graduate Solicitor at Russell McVeagh. 1 Thake v Maurice [1984] 2 All ER 513 at 526.
    [Show full text]
  • 1:16-Cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 1 of 17 Pageid
    Case: 1:16-cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:<pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 16-cv-8219 v. ) ) Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. ONSITE HEALTHCARE, INC., S.C., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Onsite Healthcare, Inc., S.C.’s motion to dismiss [29]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion [29] is granted with respect to Counts II through Count V, but denied with respect to Count I. This case is set for further status on June 15, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. to discuss pre-trial scheduling and the possibility of settlement. I. Background Defendant Onsite Healthcare, Inc., S.C. “provides professional medical services to home bound patients in the State of Illinois through its staff of licensed physicians.” [29-1, at 2.] Plaintiff Able Home Health, LLC is a “home healthcare agency” that provides “nursing and therapy services to home bound patients” in Illinois. Id. In July 2016, Plaintiff received a two- page fax on its fax machine from Defendant. [1, ¶ 9.] That fax is on Defendant’s letterhead, addressed to “Home Health Partners,” and has the subject line, “New Physician to serve the Rockford Area.” [1, at 21.] The text of the fax’s first page states: Dear Partners in Healthcare, We are happy to announce the addition of Louis R. Warren, MD to Onsite Healthcare’s team of Providers. Dr. Warren will be able to support the internal Case: 1:16-cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:<pageID> medicine needs of patients in the areas of Rockford and Belvedere effective July 11, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 TORTS 1) Observation and Analysis of Facts
    TORTS 1) Observation and analysis of facts (conduct). 2) Legal definition of torts. 3) Determination if there is a match between facts (conduct) and legal requirements of the tort in question. a. If so, determination of compensation. Tort constitutes a breach of a legal duty, other than under contract, with liability for damages. The elements of Canadian Tort: (i) conduct: intentional, negligent, strict liability; and (ii) damage. THE NEGLIGENT TORTS The negligent act o Defendant creates a reasonably foreseeable and substantial risk of its consequences. o The negligent act is determined by identifying the appropriate standard of care and applying it to the facts of the case. The standard of care is that of a reasonable –careful- person. It is an objective standard focused on the defendant’s conduct with reference to that of a reasonable person. o The central element in applying the standard of reasonable care is the concept of a reasonably foreseeable risk. o The deviation from the standard of care creates a reasonably foreseeable risk. Causation: a link between the defendant’s negligent act and the plaintiff’s damage. o Cause-in-fact: the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence caused her loss. Determined by the but-for-test. Damage: no liability can arise in negligence unless the plaintiff suffers damages as a result of defendant’s wrongful act, but not all losses may be compensated. Remote damages are NOT compensated. 1 o Defendant is liable only for the REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS NEGLIGENCE. o Defendant is liable only to plaintiffs who are within the proximate zone of danger.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: the Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass Shyamkrishna Balganesh Yale Law School
    Michigan Technology Law Review Volume 12 | Issue 2 2006 Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: The Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass Shyamkrishna Balganesh Yale Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Common Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: The Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass, 12 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 265 (2006). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol12/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMON LAW PROPERTY METAPHORS ON THE INTERNET: THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF CYBERTRESPASS Shyamkrishna Balganesh* Cite as: Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Common Law PropertyMetaphors on the Internet: The Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass, 12 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REv. 265 (2006), available at http://www.mttlr.org/voltwelve/balganesh.pdf IN TRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 266 I. CYBERTRESPASS: NEW CAUSE OF ACTION/NOVEL PROPRIETARY INTEREST? .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Privacy and Rights of the Personality
    AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Gomparativae VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY Working paper prepared for the Nordic Conferen.ee on privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm M ay 1967 BY STIG STRÜMHOLM STOCKHOLM P. A. NORSTEDT & SÜNERS FÜRLAG ACTA Institut! Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Oomparativae AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Comjmrativae Edidit ÂKE MALMSTROM VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY (Working Paper prepared for the Nordic Conférence on Privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm May 1967) By STIG STRÜMHOLM S T O C K H O L M P. A. N O RSTEDT & S ONE R S FÜRLAG © P. A. Norstedt & Sôners fôrlag 1967 Boktryckeri AB Thule, Stockholm 1967 PREFACE One of the author’s most eminent teachers in private law in the Uppsala Faculty of Law once claimed that an action in tort ought to lie against those légal writers who take up a subject to treat it broadly enough to deter others from writing about it but not deeply enough to give any final answers to the questions discussed. Were the law so severe, the present author would undoubtedly have to face a lawsuit for venturing to publish this short study on a topic which demands lengthy and careful considération on almost every point and which has already given rise to an extensive body of case law and of légal writing. This préfacé can be considered as the au­ thor’s plaidoyer in that action, fortunately imaginary. The present study was prepared at the request, and with the most active personal and material support, of the International Commis­ sion of Jurists as a working paper for the Nordic Conférence of Jurists, organized by the Commission in Stockholm in May, 1967.
    [Show full text]