Tort Notes

Trespass to the Person

Assault
General Definition - Collins v Wilcock

Apprehend force - Stephens

Reasonably apprehend - R v St. George
No Justification - One of above.

Words - Burstow & Ireland

Battery
Intentional Application of unlawful force - Wilson v Pringle
Direct and immediate - As above
Hostile - unwanted in common life - Mepstead
No defence - As above

Wainwright v Home Office

Janvier v Sweeney
Wilkinson v Downton

Consent - Colby & Chatterton

Self-Defence - Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex

False Imprisonment
Intentional or reckless wrt imprisonment -
Complete and total restriction - Bird v Jones

Negligence

Duty - Caparo v Dickman/Anns v London Borough of Merton

Breach of duty - Nettleship v Weston/ Mansfield v Weetabix
Damage caused - As above
Foreseeability - Causation
Factual Causation - But for test - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Multiple Causes - Wilsher Essex Area Health Authority
Multiple Sufficient Causes - Baker
Legal Causation - The Wagon Mound No. 1
Eggshell skull rule - Smith v Leech-Brain & Co.
Novus Actus Interveniens - Rouse v Squires
No defences - But possible defences include -
Volenti non fit injuria/consent - Dann v Hamilton/ Morris v Murray/ Nettleship v Weston
Contributory Negligence - Must satisfy - 1. Did P fail to exercise reasonable care in his
safety? - Nance v British Colombia Electricity
2. Did the failure contribute to P´s damage? Froom
v Butcher/ Davies v Swann Motors
3. By what extent should the claimant´s damages be
reduced?

Nuisance
Private Nuisance
Interference must be indirect and unreasonable
Three Headings: Encroachment - Somairsingh v Harpaulsingh
Physical Damage - St. Helen´s Smelting
Interference with P´s Comfort and Convenience - Khoransandijian v
Bush/Halsey v Esso Petroleum
Reasonable User of Land - 1. Locality - Sturges v Bridgeman
2. Duration of Interference - British Celanese
3. Intensity of Interference
4. P´s abnormal sensitivity - Robinson v Kilvert/ McKinnon
Industries v Walker
5. Malice/Bad Intention - Christie v Davie/ Bradford Corp v
Pickles

Who can sue under nuisance? Malone v Laskey/Khoransandijian v Bush/Hunter v Canary

Wharf (Proprietary Interest)
Who is liable? - Creator of nuisance
- Occupier - Titus v Duke
- Landlord - No proprietary interest for any of these.

Defences
- Prescription - Sturges v. Bridgeman/Miller v Jackson
- Statutory Authority - Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining

Injunctions: Four conditions where the Court might pay attention to when paying damages
instead of granting injunction: 1. The injury to the claimant´s right is very small.
2. The injury is capable of being estimated in money.
3. Adequately compensated by small monetary payment.
4. Whether the case is one which will be oppressive to the defendant for
the court to grant injunction: Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co / Kennaway v
Thompson

Public Nuisance
Must demonstrate that apart from harm suffered by the general public you have suffered a
particular harm that goes beyond that which is suffered by the general public - Tate and Lyle
Industries Ltd. v. Greater London Council.

Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Elements of the Rule:
1. Dangerous things - Synagogue Trust Ltd. v. Perry
2. Brought unto the land - Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board
3. Accumulation - Rylands v Fletcher
4. Escape - Read v Lyons
5. Non-natural use of land - Richards v Lothian
6. Foreseeability - Cambridge Water Works

Defences
Consent
Default of P
Act of God - Nichols v Marsland