The aim of this essay is to discuss the claims in tort that can be brought forward as a result of a

tornado and whether such claims can be successful in the Court of Law. In order to a achieve this
aim, this essay will begin by defining key terms. Thereafter, this essay will discuss the claims in
tort that can be brought forward as a result of a tornado and whether such claims can be
successful in the Court of Law. Having done the foregoing, this essay will draw to a conclusion

A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or injury to another person or their property, for which
the injured party can seek compensation or damages 1. There are many different types of torts,
including intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.

In the case of Wilkinson v. Downton2, the defendant played a practical joke on the plaintiff by
falsely telling her that her husband had been severely injured. The plaintiff suffered shock and
illness as a result, and the court found that the defendant had committed the tort of assault.

In addition, in the case of Wilson v. Pringle3, a group of children were playing a game in which
they took turns driving a car. The defendant, who was driving at the time, lost control of the car
and collided with a wall, causing the plaintiff to suffer injuries. The court found that the
defendant had committed the tort of battery.

Tortious liability is a legal concept in common law that refers to the responsibility or liability
that arises when one individual or entity causes harm or injury to another individual or entity
through their actions or inactions.4

As earlier stated Tort law is a branch of common law that deals with civil wrongs, other than
breaches of contract, that cause harm or injury to individuals or property. The purpose of tort law
is to provide a legal remedy to compensate the injured party for the harm suffered and to deter
others from engaging in similar conduct.5

Global climate change has the potential to cause a wide range of negative effects, including
increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and loss of
biodiversity.6 These effects have the potential to result in numerous tortious liability claims,

1
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
2
(1897) QB 302
3
(1987) ALL ER 111
4
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
5
Simon Goulding (2014) Essentials in Tort, 3rd Edn. New York: McMillan Publishers.
6
Simon Goulding (2014) Essentials in Tort, 3rd Edn. New York: McMillan Publishers.
particularly against governments, corporations, and individuals whose actions contribute to
climate change7.

One potential basis for a tortious liability claim is the legal concept of “nuisance.” This occurs
when an activity or condition interferes with the use and enjoyment of property, such as air,
water, or land8.

The common law concept of nuisance is a legal principle that deals with the interference of one
person’s use or enjoyment of their property by another person’s actions or activities. In the case
of Tetley v. Chitty9, the Court stated that, nuisance, can be broadly defined as any activity or
condition that is harmful, offensive, or otherwise interferes with the use and enjoyment of land or
property. In this case, a farmer was sued by his neighbors for the noise and smell emanating
from his pig farm. The court found that the noise and smell constituted a private nuisance, as
they interfered with the neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property. The court awarded
damages to the plaintiffs and ordered the farmer to take steps to mitigate the nuisance.

There are two main types of nuisance: public nuisance and private nuisance10. Public nuisance is
an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, such as pollution of the air or
water, while private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a person’s use and enjoyment
of their property.11

In Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd12, The Court held that in order to establish a claim for
nuisance, the plaintiff must show that there has been an unreasonable interference with their use
or enjoyment of their property caused by the defendant’s actions. The interference must be
substantial, meaning that it must cause a material and unreasonable interference with the
plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their property. Additionally, the interference must be
unreasonable, meaning that it must outweigh the benefits of the defendant’s actions.

Another potential basis for a tort claim is the legal theory of “failure to warn.” This occurs when
a party has a duty to provide a warning about a danger or risk, but fails to do so. In the context of

7
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
8
Michael A. Jones Textbook on Torts, 2000
9
(1986) ALL ER 54
10
Michael A. Jones Textbook on Torts, 2000
11
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
12
(1962) KB 73
climate change, this could apply to companies that fail to warn consumers and the public about
the potential harm caused by their products, such as fossil fuels.13

Additionally, there may be claims based on negligence, such as when a party fails to take
reasonable steps to prevent harm or mitigate the effects of climate change. For example,
governments and corporations may be liable for failing to take adequate steps to address the
effects of climate change, such as failing to implement policies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions or failing to adequately prepare for the impacts of rising sea levels.14

It is important to note that there are also significant legal and practical barriers to bringing
tortious liability claims related to climate change.

The first reason is that establishing causation can be difficult, as climate change is a global
phenomenon caused by the cumulative effects of many individual actions. Additionally, many of
the parties that contribute to climate change are large, powerful entities with significant resources
to defend against legal claims.15

In tort law, acts of God refer to events that are beyond human control and occur without human
intervention, such as natural disasters, lightning strikes, or earthquakes. These events are
considered to be unforeseeable and inevitable, and therefore, a defendant cannot be held liable
for any harm caused by such an event.

Common law cases have recognized the concept of acts of God in tort law. For example, in the
case of Nichols v. Marsland16, the court held that the defendant was not liable for the damage
caused by a sudden and unexpected flood that occurred due to heavy rainfall, as it was an act of
God.

Similarly, in the case of Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board17, the court held that the
defendant was not liable for the damage caused by a tree falling during a storm, as it was an act
of God and not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

13
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
14
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
15
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
16
(1876) QB 59
17
(1878) KB 206
However, it is important to note that not all events that are beyond human control are considered
to be acts of God. For example, if a defendant fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent
harm, they may still be held liable even if the harm was caused by an unforeseeable event18.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while there are potential avenues for tortious liability claims related to climate
change, the success of such claims will depend on a range of legal and practical factors,
including the ability to establish causation and the availability of legal remedies. Nonetheless,
the potential for such claims underscores the need for individuals, governments, and corporations
to take proactive steps to address the effects of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

18
M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.
 REFERENCES

CASES

Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) QB 302

Wilson v. Pringle (1987) ALL ER 111

Tetley v. Chitty (1986) ALL ER 54

Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd (1962) KB 73

Nichols v. Marsland (1876) QB 59

Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878) KB 206

BOOKS

M’vunga and Ng’ambi (2013) Tort Law in Zambia: Materials and Cases. Lusaka: Unza Press.

Michael A. Jones Textbook on Torts, 2000

Simon Goulding (2014) Essentials in Tort, 3rd Edn. New York: McMillan Publishers.