DOCSLIB.ORG

Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law, Second Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law, Second Edition COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN TORT LAW Second Edition CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN TORT LAW Second Edition Gilbert Kodilinye, MA, LLM, Barrister Professor of Property Law University of the West Indies CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney Second edition first published in Great Britain 2000 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7278 8000 Facsimile: +44 (0) 20 7278 8080 E-mail: [email protected] Visit our Home Page on http://www.cavendishpublishing.com © Kodilinye, G 2000 First edition 1995 Second edition 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher. Kodilinye, Gilbert Commonwealth Caribbean tort law – 2nd ed 1 Torts – Caribbean Area I Title II Tort 346.7'29'03 ISBN 1 85941 539 3 To Vanessa PREFACE The law of torts is an area of primary importance in the study and practice of the common law in the Caribbean. This work has been conceived as a basic text and case book for students of tort law in the various institutions of higher learning in the region, and in particular for those reading for the LLB degree. It is hoped that practitioners will also find the book useful as a work of reference, particularly with regard to the accounts of unreported cases which might otherwise be unobtainable or inaccessible. Although conceived primarily for lawyers, it is hoped that the work will also be of interest to those business executives, insurance agents, industrialists and journalists who may require some knowledge of this most important area of the law. The contents of the book have been dictated to some extent by the availability or otherwise of Caribbean case law on the various topics. Those areas in which local litigation and materials are negligible or non-existent have been summarised or omitted, whilst those which have been frequently litigated have been given extended treatment. The emphasis throughout the book is on those topics which are of most relevance and importance in the West Indian society, and the cases extracted are those which most clearly explain and illustrate the application of tort principles in the Caribbean context. This second edition incorporates all the relevant new case law (mostly unreported) appearing since 1994, including important decisions in the areas of malicious prosecution, negligence, nuisance and defamation. I am extremely grateful to Mr Timothy Alleyne for his sterling work in researching recent unreported West Indian judgments on torts for this edition, and to my lovely wife, Vanessa Kodilinye (Attorney at Law, Barbados), who patiently and cheerfully assisted me in incorporating additional material for the new edition and made many useful suggestions for improving the text. Lastly, I should like to thank the staff at Cavendish Publishing for again producing an excellent finished product. Gilbert Kodilinye Faculty of Law University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, Barbados June 2000 vii CONTENTS Preface vii Table of Cases xv Table of Statutes li 1 INTRODUCTION 1 DEFINITION 1 TORT DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER LEGAL CONCEPTS 1 Tort and crime 1 Tort and contract 3 DAMNUM SINE INJURIA 5 INJURIA SINE DAMNO 6 THE FORMS OF ACTION 6 INTENTION AND NEGLIGENCE 7 STRICT LIABILITY 8 MOTIVE AND MALICE 8 RECEPTION OF THE LAW OF TORTS IN THE CARIBBEAN 9 Antigua 10 The Bahamas 10 Barbados 10 Dominica 10 Grenada 11 Guyana 11 Jamaica 11 St Lucia 12 Trinidad and Tobago 12 2 TRESPASS TO THE PERSON 13 INTRODUCTION 13 Assault and battery distinguished 13 ASSAULT 14 Words 15 BATTERY 16 DEFENCES TO ASSAULT AND BATTERY 17 Defence of person or property 17 Parents’ and teachers’ authority 18 Consent 19 Assessment of damages for assault and battery 20 FALSE IMPRISONMENT 22 LAWFUL ARREST 29 Arrest with warrant 30 Arrest without warrant 30 ix Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law Arrest on reasonable suspicion 33 Other statutory powers of arrest 37 Statutory protection for constables 45 Procedure during and after arrest 46 Arrest through agent 51 Signing the charge-sheet 53 Assessment of damages for false imprisonment 55 3 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 59 INTRODUCTION 59 REQUIREMENTS OF THE TORT 62 Institution of prosecution 62 Termination of prosecution in plaintiff’s favour 65 Absence of reasonable and probable cause 66 Malice 68 Section 33 of the Constabulary Force Act (Jamaica) 74 Damage 75 4 NEGLIGENCE 77 INTRODUCTION 77 DEFINITION 77 DUTY OF CARE 78 Recent trends 83 BREACH OF DUTY 84 The likelihood of harm 85 The seriousness of the injury that is risked 91 The importance or utility of the defendant’s activity 92 The cost and practicability of measures to avoid the harm 98 INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL OF THE REASONABLE MAN 99 Intelligence 99 Knowledge 99 Skill 100 OMISSIONS 106 PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – RES IPSA LOQUITUR 109 CAUSATION 128 Causation in fact 128 Remoteness of damage 131 LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC LOSS 139 Negligent misstatement causing economic loss 139 Ross v Caunters economic loss 151 x Contents 5 OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY 155 INTRODUCTION 155 THE OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACTS 155 The common duty of care 155 The occupier 156 Premises 156 Visitors 156 Common duty of care 157 Independent contractors 158 DEFENCES 158 EXCLUDING LIABILITY 158 WARNINGS 159 COMMON LAW LIABILITY 160 LIABILITY TO TRESPASSERS 166 6 EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY 171 PERSONAL DUTY OF EMPLOYER AT COMMON LAW 171 Competent staff of men 172 Adequate plant and equipment 172 Safe system of working and effective supervision 173 Safe place of work 174 STATUTORY DUTIES 176 7 NUISANCE 191 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE 191 Public nuisance 191 Private nuisance 193 WHO CAN SUE? 217 Private nuisance 217 Public nuisance 219 WHO CAN BE SUED? 220 The creator 220 The occupier 220 The landlord 222 Nuisance and strict liability 222 Abatement of nuisance 224 DAMAGES 225 DEFENCES 226 Statutory authority 226 Ineffectual defences 228 8 THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER 229 INTRODUCTION 229 FORESEEABILITY 230 xi Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law SCOPE OF THE RULE 231 Things within the rule 231 Bringing onto the land and accumulation 232 Escape 232 Non-natural user 233 DEFENCES 239 Consent of the plaintiff 240 Default of the plaintiff 240 Act of God 241 Act of a stranger 242 Statutory authority 249 DAMAGES 249 9 LIABILITY FOR ANIMALS 251 INTRODUCTION 251 LIABILITY FOR CATTLE TRESPASS 252 Statutory defence 253 Parties to an action in cattle trespass 254 Trespass from the highway 256 LIABILITY FOR DANGEROUS ANIMALS (THE SCIENTER ACTION) 256 Who can be sued? 260 Defences 260 Scienter in the Caribbean 261 LIABILITY FOR DOGS 263 LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE 271 10 DEFAMATION 279 INTRODUCTION 279 LIBEL AND SLANDER 279 PROOF OF DAMAGE 280 SLANDER ACTIONABLE PER SE 281 Imputation of crime 281 Imputation of certain diseases 284 Imputation of unchastity or adultery 286 Imputation affecting professional or business reputation 289 REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE IN LIBEL AND SLANDER 290 WHAT IS DEFAMATORY? 290 PRESUMPTION OF FALSITY 292 EXAMPLES OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS 292 Words must be defamatory 293 Reference to the plaintiff 311 xii Contents DEFENCES 320 Justification (truth) 320 Fair comment 322 Absolute privilege 346 Qualified privilege 349 ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN DEFAMATION ACTIONS 375 11 PASSING OFF 379 DEFINITION 379 Marketing a product as that of the plaintiff 380 Imitating the ‘get-up’ or appearance of the plaintiff’s goods 380 Marketing goods under a trade name already appropriated for goods of that kind by the plaintiff, or under a name so similar to the plaintiff’s trade name as to be mistaken for it 392 Marketing goods with the trade mark of the plaintiff or with any deceptive imitation of such mark 393 DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT MUST BE ‘CALCULATED TO DECEIVE’ 393 USE OF DEFENDANT’S OWN NAME 394 COMMON FIELD OF ACTIVITY 395 INJURY TO GOODWILL 396 12 VICARIOUS LIABILITY 403 DEFINITION 403 SERVANTS AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS 404 LENDING A SERVANT 406 COMMISSION OF A TORT BY THE SERVANT 408 RES IPSA LOQUITUR 408 THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT 409 Manner of doing the work the servant was employed to do 409 Authorised limits of time and place 410 Express prohibition 412 Giving lifts to unauthorised passengers 414 Connection with employer’s business 419 IMPROPER DELEGATION 424 LIABILITY OF BAILEES 427 OTHER INTENTIONAL WRONGFUL ACTS 430 VEHICLE OWNERS AND CASUAL AGENTS 432 WHOLLY OR PARTLY ON THE OWNER’S BUSINESS 433 THE PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE OR AGENCY 439 LIABILITY INSURANCE 444 xiii Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS 445 Authorisation of tort 445 Torts of strict liability 447 Negligence 447 13 GENERAL DEFENCES 453 INTRODUCTION 453 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 453 Seat belts 454 Standard of care 455 Road accidents 463 Apportionment 469 VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA 469 Essentials of volenti in negligence cases 471 Volenti and scienti 472 Rescuers 473 Volenti and workmen 474 14 DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH 477 PERSONAL INJURIES 477 Special damages 478 General damages 479 Heads of general damage 481 Deductions 487 DEATH 495 Survival of actions 505 APPENDIX 1 511 DIGEST OF ADDITIONAL COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN CASES APPENDIX 2 529 EXTRACTS FROM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (ABSOLUTE) LIABILITY TORTS • General Rule
    STRICT (ABSOLUTE) LIABILITY TORTS • General rule: • A defendant may be held liable in the absence of an intention to act or negligence in acting IF his conduct (or the conduct of those with whom he shares a special legal relationship) causes the Plaintiff loss or injury. • Strict liability: • Under the doctrine of strict liability, the Defendant may be held liable without acting intentionally, carelessly or unreasonably • In some instances, defences can be raised • (eg): employers are liable for the actions of their employees if they commit an act that results in loss or injury during the course and scope of their employment • Absolute liability: • Commission of a certain act serves as proof of a Tortious action resulting in liability • The essential issue is causation and not fault • There are no defences that can be raised • Vicarious Liability: • Several forms of vicarious liability: 1) Statutory Vicarious liability - (s192 Ontario Highway Traffic Act) – an owner of a vehicle accepts liability for any other driver using it with their knowledge - (Yeung v Au) 2) Principal/Agent relationship - A principal may be held liable for the Torts committed by an agent 3) Employer/Employee relationship - A Court can hold an employer liable, and an employee personally liable. - The doctrine of vicarious liability provides the Plaintiff with an alternative source of relief – this does not mean that the employee is relieved of responsibility. • I.R.A.C: (employer/employee relationship) • Issue: - The question is whether … (BASED ON THE EXAM PAPER…!!!) • Rule: - a Court can hold an employer vicariously liable, and an employee personally liable for the actions of the employee.
    [Show full text]
  • Causation - in Context: an Afterword
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 Causation - In Context: An Afterword Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Causation - In Context: An Afterword," 63 Chicago-Kent Law Review 653 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAUSATION-IN CONTEXT: AN AFTERWORD RICHARD A. EPSTEIN* The four principal papers in this symposium illustrate the rich di- versity of approaches that may be taken toward the question of causa- tion-long and rightly regarded as one of the central issues in the law. In this afterword, I shall address myself to some of the recurrent questions of causation that intrude themselves into the legal, economic and philo- sophical account of the subject. The purpose of this paper is to give some indication of the proper place that causation has in a comprehensive the- ory of tort law, indeed of civil obligation. The task, then, is to place causation back into the context from which it is all too often wrenched. In order to do that it is necessary to recanvass, in some degree, the major issues of tort law. Accordingly, the first section addresses the question of whether it is possible to have a baseline of property rights which distinguishes violence from competition, and thus allows the emer- gence of a theory of tort liability that depends heavily on causal concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle Tresspass
    CATTLE TRESSPASS The owner of the capital may be held liable if his cattle commit trespass on the land of another person. It is an ancient common law tort whereby the keeper of livestock was held strictly liable for any damage caused by the straying livestock. The liability in such case is strict and the owner of the cattle is liable even if the vicious propensity of the cattle and, owner’s knowledge of the same are not proved. There is also no necessity of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. Liability for cattle trespass is similar to, but conceptually distinct from, the old common law scienter action in relation to strict liability for animals which are known to be vicious. In many of the reported cases, claims for cattle trespass and scienter are pleaded in the alternative. Cattle for the purpose include bulls, cows, sheep, pigs, horses, asses and poultry. Dogs and cats are not included in the term and, therefore there cannot be cattle trespass by dogs and cats. In Buckle v. Holmes,1 the defendant’s cat strayed into the plaintiff’s land and there it killed thirteen pigeons and two bantams. Killing of birds was nothing peculiar to this cat alone, therefore, the liability under the scienter rule did not arise. There was no liability even for cattle trespass because cat is no ‘cattle’ for the purpose of this rule. The same is the position in case of a dog.2 The liability for cattle trespass is strict, scienter or negligence on the part of the owner of the cattle is not required to be proved.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle Trespass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 5 Volume 46, Number 2 (Summer 2008) Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners Katie Black James Wishart Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Environmental Law Commons Commentary Citation Information Black, Katie and Wishart, James. "Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 46.2 (2008) : 397-425. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol46/iss2/5 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners Abstract Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have caused substantial economic losses by contaminating non- GMO crops and threatening the economic self-determination of non-GMO farmers. After Monsanto v. Schmeiser, biotech IP owners hold most of the rights in the property "bundle" with respect to bioengineered organisms. This commentary highlights the disequilibrium between these broad patent rights and the lack of legal responsibility for harms caused by GMO products. The uthora s propose that there is a role for tort law-- specifically the tort of cattle trespass--in fairly allocating risk and responsibility. The doctrine of cattle trespass reflects a policy of distributive justice, positing that the unique risks associated with keeping living creatures ought to import liability based on the owner's creation and control of those risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Winfield Tort
    WINFIELD ON TORT EIGHTH EDITION BY J. A. JOLOWICZ, M.A. Of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Lecturer in Law of the University of Cambridge AND T. ELLIS LEWIS, B.A., LL.M., PH.D. Of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Lecturer in Law in the University of Cambridge LONDON SWEET & MAXWELL 4967 CONTENTS page Preface vii Table of Cases xiii Table of Statutes xlvii References to Year Books lv 1. MEANING OF THE LAW OF TORT 1 The Foundation of Tortious Liability .... 10 2. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY . 14 Act or Omission 16 Intention or Negligence or the Breach of a Strict Duty . 16 Motive and Malice 20 3. NOMINATE TORTS 24 4. TRESPASS TO THE PERSON . .27 Assault and Battery 27 False Imprisonment 32 Intentional Physical Harm other than Trespasses to the Person 40 5. NEGLIGENCE 42 Essentials of Negligence 42 Trespass to the Person and Negligence .... 76 6. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE . 80 Remoteness of Damage 80 Contributory Negligence 102 7. NERVOUS SHOCK 118 8. BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY 128 The Existence of Liability 128 Elements of the Tort 134 Defences 138 Nature of the Action 140 9. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 143 Introductory 143 Common Law 147 Breach of Statutory Duty 158 Employers' Liability 164 10. LIABILITY FOR LAND AND STRUCTURES . .168 Introduction 168 The Common Law 169 The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 177 ix X CONTENTS 10. LIABILITY FOR LAND AND STRUCTURES—continued Liability to Trespassers 192 Liability to Children 199 Liability of Non-Occupiers 207 11.
    [Show full text]
  • JIJUN YIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs. PI
    ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000325 09-MAR-2020 10:49 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII ---o0o--- JIJUN YIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P.I. AGUIAR, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF VIRGINIO C. AGUIAR, JR., DECEASED, KEVIN AGUIAR and AGEE, INC., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. SCWC-15-0000325 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000325; CIV. NO. 11-1-0331) MARCH 9, 2020 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT BY POLLACK, J. In this case, the Petitioner filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court) alleging that the Respondent’s cattle trespassed onto his property causing damage to his sweet potato crop. In granting the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the Petitioner’s land was neither “properly fenced” nor “unfenced,” and therefore Hawaii’s statutory law governing the trespass of livestock onto cultivated land did not apply to the Petitioner’s property. Further, the circuit court determined that a provision in the Petitioner’s lease, making the Petitioner fully responsible for keeping cattle out of his cultivated land, was not void against public policy. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. Upon review of the legislative history of the statutes that govern the trespass of livestock onto the cultivated land of another, we conclude that the legislature intended to hold owners of livestock liable for the damage caused by the trespass of their animals on cultivated land whether the land is properly fenced or not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Commission
    THE LAW COMMISSION CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ANIMALS Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE PRICE 5s. 6d. NET LAW COM. No. 13 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commis- sioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Scarman, O.B.E., Chairman. Mr. L. C. B. Gower, M.B.E. Mr. Neil Lawson, Q.C. Mr. N. S. Marsh, Q.C. Mr. Andrew Martin, Q.C. Mr. Arthur Stapleton Cotton is a special consultant to the Commission. The Secretary of the Commission is Mr. H. Boggis-Rolfe, C.B.E., and its offices are at Lacon House, Theobald’s Road, London, W.C.l. 2 CONTENTS Page A. Introduction . 5 B. The General Principles of Liability . 6 (a) Strict Liability for Dangerous Animals . 6 (b) Suggestions for the Refom of Strict Liability for Dangerous Animals . 8 (c) Recommendations of the Law Commission on Strict Liability for Dangerous Animals . 10 (d)The General Liability for Negligence . 16 (e) The Searle v. Wallbanlc Exception to Liability for Negligence 17 (f)Trespassers and Liability for Negligence in respect of Animals . 26 (g) Summary of Recommendations regarding Liability for Negligence . 27 C. Liability for Cattle Trespass . 27 D. DistressDamageFeasant . , . 30 E. The Dogs Acts 1906 to 1928 . 32 F. The Person Liable for Injury or Damage inflicted by Animals . 33 G. The Protection of Livestock against Dogs . 35 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    345 Bibliography Alexander (1972) 'The Law of Tort and Non-Physical Loss: Insurance Aspects', 12 JSPTL 119. Allen et al. (1979) Accident Compensation after Pearson (Sweet & Maxwell). Anderson (1994) in Markesinas & Deakin, Tort Law. Atiyah (1967) Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (Sweet & Maxwell). Atiyah (1972) 'Res Ipsa Loquitur in England and Australia', 35 MLR 337. Atiyah (1989) An Introduction to the Law of Contract, 4th edn (Oxford University Press). Baker (1990) An Introduction to English Legal History, 3rd edn (Butterworths). Baker and Milsom (1986) Sources of English Legal History (Butterworths). Bell (1983) Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions (Oxford University Press). Beyleveld and Brownsword (1991) 'Privity, Transivity and Rationality', 54 MLR48. Birks (1985) An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Oxford University Press). Birks (1991), 'Civil Wrongs: A New World', Butterworths Lectures 1990-91. Bishop (1980) 'Negligent Misrepresentation through Economists' Eyes', 96 LQR 360. Bishop (1982) 'Economic Loss in Tort', 2 OJLS 1. Bowman and Bailey (1986) 'The Policy Operational Dichotomy - A Cuckoo in the Nest', 45 CLJ 430. Buckley (1996) The Law of Nuisance, 2nd edn (Butterworths). Burrows (1994) Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract, 2nd edn (Butter- worths) Burrows (1993), 'The Scope of Exemplary Damages', 109 LQR 358. Calabresi (1970) The Costs of Accidents (New Haven, CT). Calcutt (1990) Report on Privacy and Related Matters (HMSO), Cmnd 1102. Calcutt (1993) Review of Press Self-Regulation (HMSO), Cm 2135. Cane (1989) 'Economic Loss in Tort: Is the Pendulum out of Control', 52 MLR 200. Cane (1996) Tort Law and Economic Interests, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press). Cane (1993) Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 5th edn (Butter­ worths).
    [Show full text]
  • TORTICLES Nominate Torts
    r991-921 TORTICLES 105 TORTICLES Bernard Rudden* "Both major systems of law in the opening decades of the nineteenth century had to meet new problems with old tools: the French with a wide standard of liability; the British and Americans with a pigeonhole system of nominate torts." F.F. Stone.l Professor Stone's observations describe the early nineteenth century. Almost two hundred years later, very little has changed. This small tribute to his memory speculates on the reasons for the persistence of the pattern. The first part offers a very general comparison of the intellectual and foreniic approach to modern tort problems of the French on the one hand, and, on the other, of the common-law family. The second part attempts something not, apparently, done before: an alphabetical list of known torts. The third part considers the reasons for, and some consequences of, the cornmon law's style of problem solving in this area of law. A Brief Comparison - Tltiq paper's title coins a diminutive to express a curious characteristic of the common law, and one on which attention will be focused. Nonetheless, as a preliminary contrast it is worth recalling, in very general terms, the striking features of the modern French position. ryryi1S asiderecent statutory intervention covering motor vehicles and defective products, liability in private law is attributed on a few broad glounds: that damage was caused deliberately or carelessly; or by a thing in the tortfeasor's custdyi2 or by someone (employee or child) * LL.D. (Cambridge). D.C.L. (Oxford). Ph.D. (Wales). LL.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of Torts Wex S
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 31 | Number 1 December 1970 Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of Torts Wex S. Malone Repository Citation Wex S. Malone, Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of Torts, 31 La. L. Rev. (1970) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol31/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUMINATIONS ON THE ROLE OF FAULT IN THE HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW OF TORTS* Wex S. Malone** Any attempt to assign negligence its proper role in the his- tory of tort law must be deferred until a determination of the role that fault in any of its varieties played in early law. Even this deferment does not lead us back far enough, for we must also ask whether we can isolate a distinct role for tort law itself in the dawn of the history of the common law. The answer here must be clearly, No, if by "torts" we mean some sort of organized scheme for determining when and under what conditions the monetary costs of a harm suffered by one person should be shifted to the shoulders of another by means of some authori- tative order. The very prospect of a civil suit for damages pre- supposes a sophistication that simply did not exist in the earliest half-organized legal societies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation: a Critique of the Reliance Model of Liability
    THE CANADIAN APPROACH TO NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION: A CRITIQUE OF THE RELIANCE MODEL OF LIABILITY by John Fairlie B.Mus. (1978), LL.B. (1982), The University of British Columbia A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Faculty of Law) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of British Columbia August 2003 ©John Fairlie, 2003 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^.r^^x^a, ^-U A^OQ ^ ^TV<Lo b.^p ^<VJ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date Ao^u-V" 2.q j ?J^CN^ DE-6 (2/88) 11 ABSTRACT The Canadian Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation: A Critique of the Reliance Model of Liability by John Fairlie This thesis is presented on recent developments in the law of negligent misrepresentation in Canada, focusing on the debate surrounding the appropriate basis of liability and its significance in commercial settings. Since Hedley Byrne first opened up the law of negligence to careless words and economic loss, there has been some confusion as to the precise nature of the duty of care.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Intentional Invasion of Land
    3 Intentional Invasion of Land Trespass [3.10] From earliest times the common law protected the possessory rights of landlords against unauthorised entry by an action of trespass, known as quare clausum fregit. The remedy was not, as its name might suggest, confined to intrusions upon enclosed lands because, says Blackstone, “every man’s land is in the eye of the law inclosed and set apart from his neighbour’s.” 1 In the course of its history, this action of trespass came to be used for a number of different purposes which have left their mark on its conditions of liability. In origin, trespass was a remedy for forcible breach of the King’s peace, aimed against acts of intentional aggression. This early association with the maintenance of public order explains why the action lies only for interference with an occupier’s actual possession. Its proprietary aspect became more dominant when it was later used for the purpose of settling boundary disputes, quieting title and preventing the acquisition of easements by prescriptive user. 2 These latter functions account for the rule that the plaintiff is not required to prove material loss, 3 and that a mistaken belief by the defendant that the land was his affords no excuse. 4 The temptation for the occupier to resort to violence in defence of his boundary and privacy was not lessened by the absence of pecuniary loss, while in less serious cases nominal damages were justified to vindicate his rights against adverse claims. Likewise, if mistake as to title had been admitted as a defence, trespass would have been a less suitable remedy for settling claims to disputed land.
    [Show full text]