Task 3a: Describe the nature of general tortuos liability comparing and contrasting to contractual liability A tortious liability is related

to the duty of care, and negligence of that duty, with respect to persons with whom there is no contractual liability. For example, if a person fails to maintain his property and part of his property falls off and injures another person, the property owner is liable for the damages to that person, even though it may be a passerby with whom there are no contractual obligations. A contractual liability is created when two or more parties promise certain things to each other. If either party defaults on the agreement, that is breach of contract and legal remedies are available to the 'injured' party. For example, a person may engage someone to clean their house in exchange for an agreed amount of money. 1. Similarities of contractual liability and tort liability Contract law and tort law both exist under civil law, policing individual relationships which may arise between businesses, and businesses and individuals. Tourtious liability and contractual liability are similar in that both tort and breach of contract are civil wrongs. And the person wronged sues in a civil court for compensation. 2. Differences between contractual liability and tort liability Contractual liability Tort liability - Contractual liability means that a party to - Tort is a separate type of liability that has a contract has somehow breached the to do with civil wrongs and gives a cause of contract and when taken to court will be action for the injured party. held liable for the contract or at least for For example, an individual tripping and the loss to the nonbreaching party as a falling in a grocery store on a puddle of result of the breach. - There is more freedom in contractual law water may have a tort claim but would not have a contract claim against the store. - in tortuous liability it is more of imposed nature - The claimant will receive compensation - the claimant can only claim damages as in for damages and expected earnings in the the case of tortuous liability case of contract liability

uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/31/data. “occupier” means a person who2 (a) is in physical possession of premises. the company has to be liable because the company gives a cause of action for the injured party.com/Q/What_is_the_nature_of_general_tortuous_liability www. patent. The important difference the one who can actually sue for damages between contracted liability and this. the condition of premises. Therefore. tourtuous liability would be applicable in this case. the activities conducted on those premises and the persons allowed to enter those premises 1 2 http://wiki. Apply to Prime Computers. . a child died because of the negligence of the company. or (b) has responsibility for. the parents of the child claimed for the loss of their child.There is more privacy in the contract in .In tortuous liabilities any one as a third 3.answers. and control over. Task 3b: Explain liability applicable to an occupier of premises: I..gov.pdf . the defendant and . However. there is a sumptuous fruit tree which is obviously not to be consumed.Tortuous liability arises from a negligence the case of contractual liabilities as the of civil duty.1 party who had suffered losses or damages can claim compensation from the defendant. Here.sumptuous fruit tree case In this case. claimant must be the parties to the contract .In a contractual claim.legislation. Explain occupiers’ liability: According to Occupiers’ Liability Acts Chapter 337. Hence. is that as in the case of ATKIN V anyone can claim remedy not necessarily the contracting parties. Therefore. copyright infringement parties who are involved in the contract are or defamation. the defendant may not have any previous transaction or relationship with the claimant SOUNDERS(1942).In a tortious claim. besides a fence in the factory. the management of Prime Computers did not put warning sign or put fence off in the factory to prevent children got through the gap even though they were aware that childeren will eat that fruits.

the occupier owes a duty to that child to take such care as in all 3 4 www. (c) trailers and portable structures designed or used for a residence. and (d) railway locomotives./occupiers. An occupier is liable to a trespasser for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser that results from the occupier’s wilful or reckless conduct. excepting portable structures and equipment other than those described in paragraph (c). the premises create a danger of death or serious bodily harm to that child. However. Liability to trespasser Under Occupiers’ Liability Acts RSA 1980 cO-3 Sec.com/textbooks/9780415458467/. 12 (2). or activities on. Liability to visitors Under Occupiers’ Liability Acts RSA 1980 cO-3 Sec.routledgelaw. 3 2.pdf .ppt www. An occupier of premises is the person who has control of the premises..4 II. vehicles and aircraft while not in operation.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/O04. 1. and liability to visitors. An occupier of premises owes a duty to every visitor on the occupier’s premises to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which the visitor is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there or is permitted by law to be there.qp. 5. Application: Under Occupiers’ Liability Act RSA 1980 cO-3 Sec1. (b) ships and vessels. railway cars. Analyse Prime Computers-sumptuous fruit tree case Facts: Prime Computers has a sumptuous fruit tree which is obviously not to be consumed besides a fence in the factory. There are three different liabilities under occupier’s liability including liability to trespassers. business or shelter. A six year old child died after eating some fruits containing poisonous seeds which are obviously not to be consumed in the factory. the company did not put the fence off or put a warning sign. and (b) that the condition of. 13(1) When an occupier knows or has reason to know (a) that a child trespasser is on the occupier’s premises.And “premises” includes (a) land and structures or either of them..

they shall be liable to make contribution to and indemnify each other in the degree in which they are respectively found to have been at fault. and the trespasser or child trespasser. . in an appropriate case. it said that: (5) Any duty owed by virtue of this section in respect of a risk may. Beside that. and where two or more persons are found at fault. under Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 Sec. When an occupier is liable under section 12(2) or 13.5. the court shall determine the degree in which each was at fault. it said that: 2. the Contributory Negligence Act applies. According to Contributory Negligence Act 1978 Chapter 3 Sec. (2) In determining whether the duty of care under subsection (1) has been discharged. (b) the ability of the child to appreciate the danger. suffers damage partly as a result of the fault of the occupier and partly as a result of the trespasser’s or child trespasser’s own fault. they shall be jointly and severally liable for the fault to the person suffering loss or damage.the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the child will be reasonably safe from that danger. and (c) the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or protecting the child from the danger as compared to the risk of the danger to the child. as the case may be.2. (1) Where damage has been caused by the fault of two or more persons. but as between themselves in the absence of any contract express or implied. consideration shall be given to (a) the age of the child. Furthermore. according to Unfair Contract Term Act 1977 Sec 2: (1) A person may not by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence. be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk. Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors.

he may have to give up work or he might suffer permanent damage from the exposure to so much smoke.(2) In the case of other loss or damage. Bob is an asthmatic and he has gradually been forced to take more time off because of tobaco smoke. a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability or negligence. Thus. based on above analysis. Decision: Therefore. Johnny. Sec. In addition.7. Task 3c: Explain the liability applicable to the staff and discuss the nature of employer liability with reference to vicarious liability and health and safety implications of his employees 3. the Lifting Operation and Lifting Equipment Regulation 1998. but has done nothing to enforce it.1 Apply to Peter’s case Fact: Peter is the deliver drive of Prime Computer for 3 years. Bob has high blood pressure and this may increase his risk for stroke and heart attacks Application: According to Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. . Nevertheless. Two years ago.2 Apply to Bob’s case Fact: Bob works for Prime Computer for 5 years. Peter was not allowed to give lift to his relatives. the management of Prime Computers has to be liable to dead child. it said that: (can not find out appropriate rule in detail) Decision: 3. it stated that: Section 7 (a-b) it shall be the duty of every employee while at work: (a) To take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and others who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work. the company introduced a no smoking policy in the office. Peter gave a lift to his friend. except in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonablenes. and unfortunely Johnny was killed in an accident. 7 out of 10 people working in the main office smoke. Application: According to Health and Safety at Work.

Discuss the liability of the Prime Computer for claims against it by its employee under the Heath and Safety at Work Act 1974 According to Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. the employees must follow law and relevant codes of practice. Bob works for Prime Computer in the purchasing department for 5 years. They are aware that Bob is an asthmatic who has gradually been forced to take more and more time off work because of the effects of tobacco smoke. So the company must take reasonable care for healthy and safety of all employees which include Bob. the company breached the duty of care for its employees. but have done nothing to enforce it. arising from the fact that 7 of the 10 people employed in the office smoke. So there are damages. Bob’s doctor had advised him that he may have to give up work or he might suffer permanent damage from the exposure to so much smoke. 7 out of 10 people working in the main office arise. There is defence. Bob can sue the company for negligence and clain for hospital fees which is reduced. Discuss the liability of the Prime Computer for claims against it by employee based upon the tort of negligence. Thus. It is contributory neglience. to enable his employer or other person to perform or comply with any requirement or duty imposed under a relevant statutory provision. Bob has high blood pressure and this may increase his risk for stroke and heart attacks. and welfare to person at work who comes within the scope of the employer while undertaking their own work. Prime Computer introduces a no smoking policy in the office 2 years ago. the employer must secure the health. Therefore. if the company had not forced Bob to take many days off work because of tobaco smoke in office. Bob suffers from asthmatic. Tow years ago. the number of smoke employees would not increase. safety. b. he could not have paid a lot of money in hospital fees. a. Therefore. so far as is necessary. In addition. The company did not provide people a good working . but has done nothing to enforce it. In addition.(b) (b) To co-operate with his employer or any other person. Prime Computer introduced no smoking policy in the office. In addition. If the company had enforced its emloyees not to smoke.

storage and transport of articles and substances.environment. specifically to Bob. Decision: Therefore.) a. use. Section 2(2)(a-e) Without prejudice to the above. the matters to which the duty extends include: (a) Provision and maintenance of safe plant and safe systems of work. Prime Computer has to be liable to its employees. safety and welfare of employees while at work. Thus. Her main task is word-processing. After 5 years she developed repetitive strain injury which leaves her with a permanent deformity in her hands. In this case.3 Apply to Lydia’s case Fact: Lydia is employed by Prime Computer as a computer operator. she has had no training in health and safety issues.2 Employers Section 2(1) Ensure the health. Application: According to Health and Safety at work Act 1974. instruction. Lydia is employed by Prime Computer as a computer operator. It must be safe. Hence. (b) Arrangements for ensuring safe means of handling. 3. the company breached a duty of care. (e) Provision and maintenance of a safe working environment and adequate welfare facilities. (c) Provision of information. She has had no training in health and safety issues. As a result she spends many hours without a break at the keyboard. . Over a period of five years she developed repetitive strain injury which leaves her with a permanent deformity in her hands. she works many hours without a break. Discuss the liability of the Prime Computer for claims against it by employee based upon the tort of negligence. without risks to health and has adequate facilities for employee welfare at work. So the company must take reasonable care for healthy and safety for all employees which include Lydia. and her task is word-processing. Nevertheless. Sec. training and supervision (d) Provision of a safe place of work and provision and maintenance of safe access and egress to that workplace. (Note: The above duties are all qualified by the term "so far as is reasonably practicable".

he must be liable for all damage from the escape. Decision: Therefore. Thus. For example. and welfare to person at work who comes within the scope of the employer while undertaking their own work. Unlikely. the company breached the duty of care to Lydia. even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Thus. there was damage. a person or a company may be liable for a tort. Lydia’s main task is word-processing. In additions. safety. but the company did not provide her with any training on health ans safety issues. Based on that. the employer must provide employees such information. Therefore. b. the employer must be liable for damage suffer by employees. the employer must secure the health. and not required her to work for many hours without being told to have a break. The principles of tort are based on rights. or injury. . Acoording to Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. If the company had provided her with training on health and safety issues. strict liability is the legal responsibility for damages. Lydia can sue company for negligence. Thus. she could not have develpoed a repetitive strain injury in her hand. If a person who brings and keeps on land in his occupation anything likely to do mischief. It means that defendant must be liable even though he took reasonable care. training and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety at work. There is no defence. he did not do anythiing to stop it. instruction. In law of tort no previous transaction or relationship need exist: the parties may be complete strangers. Therefore. It applied to both individuals and companies. Prime Computer has to be liable to its employee. Discuss the liability of the Prime Computer for claims against it by its employee under the Heath and Safety at Work Act 1974 According to Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. if the empoyer discovered the old mine working. the related duty to respect them and compensation for infringement. the employees must follow law and relevant codes of practice.there was damage which was caused by company. specifically to Lydia Task 3d: Describe and distinguish between strict liability and tortuous liability The law of tort is concerned really with a person’s responsibility to others. she spent many hors to work without a break.

In additions. the claimant must prove four steps: The defendant owned him a duty care to the plaintiff. causing brain damage. For example. a duty of care need not imply a relationship.Task 4a: Explain what must be proved in order to suceed in legal claim based on the tort of negligence Fact: .Tom is Winslow’s son. Dr. Murphy gave him an anti-tetanus injection which unfortuately produced in Winslow an allergic reaction. damage.html . At hospital. Application: (not yet) Decision: (not yet) In some cases. Mr. Winslow had not been waering a seatbelt. While the watch shop was being repaired. 5 htt://law. He accompanied by his father went to hospital because his girl friend was seriously injured and need an operation. the neighbouring café store. The court will instruct the jury as to the standard of conduct required of the defendant. Tom knocked down a cyclist and the cyclist was died. It means that people act with reasonable care towards each other. the driver must reasonable care for all road users when he is driving. In additions. Mondi Expresso Bar. The injured person must have been exposed to a forseeable risk which could reasonably have been avoided. suffered facial lacedrations and a broken leg. the defendant did not intent to cause the legal action. The result of the breach of that duty of care injury.jrank. The defendant did not have a defence. The law of tort appears to avoid inflicting foreseeable injury.org/pages/8781/Negligence-Proff-Negligence. 25 hours. In a negligence suit. or financial loss. To succeed in an action for negligence. suffers a loss of trade. the plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant did not act as a reasonable person would have acted under the circumstances5. The defendant breaches that duty of care. Tom crashed into and damaged the front of watch shop.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful