Law of tort- September 22 2022

Tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy

Tort deals with several areas of law

 Negligence
 Trespass
 Nuisance
 Liability to animals- p.s this falls under strict liability
 Trespass to person; assault and battery, false imprisonment – or malicious prosecution
 Employer’s liability
 Product liability
 Vicarious liability- parents responsible for the child action when he/she damages someone
property but the child is a minor so the parent is responsible.
 Defamation/ Torts affecting reputation
Distinction between tort and contract

Contract- Obligations fixed by parties based on agreement. But terms are sometimes imposed by
law, often to protect consumers. The parties are aware of their legal obligation before the breach of
contract occurs. Focuses on the omissions to do what is promised. Aims to enforce promises made
and deter breaches of promises. No need to prove fault. Compensates for the quality of the goods

Tort- Duties imposed by law. Note that parties may well contract to vary the duties that the law
impose, when tort is committed the parties are not in a legal relationship eg accident. Relates to the
proximity of the relationship and how claim to the wrong alleged. It aims to stop behaviors that will
cause harm to another, resulting in injury. Necessary to prove fault. Compensated for unsafe
products.
 Tort vs contract- sept 26 2022

Contact focuses on enforcing promises to the future

Tort wish to a

Tort compensate for tangible and intangible losses

Loss of amenities

Damages is unliquidated

Differentiate between

 Contact deals with loss of expectation

 Tort deals with restoring the status quo

Tort interest protected(PREP)

 Property- that has value to u such as land (Law that cover it are nuisance, trespass)
 Reputation- something that u can protect ( sue for defamation) something that can be damage
reputation is also malicious prosecution- U were prosecuted for a crime and was label a criminal
 Economy- Money, something maliciously injured your economy status
 Personal liberty-

A tort case-

Bradford Corp v Pickles [1895]-

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562- Slug was found in the soda

Tort and strict liability

Liability for stray animals

Liability for defective products under the consumer protection Act

Liability for dangerous animal

Liability under the rule in Ryland v fletcher

Objective of torts

Remedies/compensation

Protect interests- PREP

Retribution

Deterrence

Vindication

Loss distribution
Punishment

Defamation

Deals with reputation and economic interest

Deframation seeks to protect a person interest in reputation

Elements – Dpp the 3 elements of defamation

a. The words must be defamatory

i. Innuendo can be either true (legal)or false (popular)

b. The words must have referred to the plaintiff

i. Class or group defamation

ii. Unintentional defamation

c. The words were published to at least one person other than the plaintiff himself.

i. Innocent Dissemination

ii. Liability of Internet service providers

Defamatory is to lower a person in the estimation of right- thinking minds of society. - Case Bryne v
Dean 1937

They aren’t naïve and suspicious- so basically that why it’s defamatory

Expose hatred

Cause shun

Discredit a person in his trade

Damage a person financial credit

i. Innuendo- can be either true (legal)or false (popular)

September 29,2022

Section 8 the defamation act 2013 of Jamaica

Bonnick v Morris and the gleaner 2002 in Jamaica

which was heard on appeal from the court of appeal of Jamaica

Lord Nicholls explained that the ordinary reader

 Innuendo- (suggestion/implication/allusion)

They allow the court to interpret the meaning of a word

True innuendo- they have to have special facts.

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper ltd 1929 a newspaper published a photograph of

False innuendo- no need to have special knowledge of any special facts

We compared the case of bonaby v Nassua Guardian with Bonnick v Morris. One gives off a true
innuendo and one gives off a false innuendo

We compare Cassidy v daily mirror with bonaby v Nassua as well

b. The words must have referred to the plaintiff

The plaintiff must prove that he is being defamed

le fanu v Malcolmson-

It is sufficient for liability if

1. The plaintiff is referred to by his intials or nickname or;

2. If he is depicted in a cartoon, photograph, or verbal descriptionor;
3. If he is identified by his office or post;
4. If a particular group of which he/she is a member is mentioned

October 3, 2022

Words must be defamatory or published

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant said it to another person

Innocent Dissemination- Such disseminators have a defense to an action for libel if they can
show:

a) that, at the time that they disseminated the newspaper or book, they did not know that it contained
libellous matter; and

(b) that it was not due to any negligence in conducting their business that they did not discover the libel.
(Vizetelly v Mudie’s Select Library Ltd [1900] 2 QB 170)

It is a question of fact in each case as to whether the defendant was negligent or not, the onus being on
the defendant to establish his lack of knowledge of the libel and the absence of carelessness on his part.
(Ibid)
Liability of internet service providers- The server they are on can be held responsible for passing around
defamatory statement. That’s why they can rely on the innocent dissemination

Case -Cubby v CompuServe, they were internet server provider (isp) was held not liable for defamatory
information posted on the internet by a third party, since the defendant had no opportunity to review
the material prior to publication

Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services- They were held liable because not only were they isp but also
moderator

Consequences- if the isp takes a laissez-fare meaning relaxed and distant approach and refrains from
exercising contrl and montitoring the content of message posted on the internet will escape liability for
defamation, while an ISP which conscientiously exercises such control will be penalised in damages.
Such a result seems perverse, and hardly likely to improve the legal environment in which the internet
operates.

3 defenses of tort defamation

 Truth or justification- once u can prove that the statement is true even if they did it by ill-will or spite
he can plead the defense of truth. CASE- Alexander v North Eastern Rly Co. (1865) 122 All E.R. 1221;
(Rely on the defence of true but it was accurately correct)- Here the D published a notice that P had
been sentenced to a fine of £1.00 or 3 weeks imprisonment in default of payment because he
traveled on a train without the appropriate ticket. The alternative was in fact 2 weeks imprisonment
and not 3. Held: that the defence of justification could succeed because the statement was
substantially true.off
 Fair comment-
 Privilege- absolute and qualified