Analysis of Law of Tort Cases - Essay Example

? A tort may be defined as one person’s interference with another’s rights, either through intent, negligence or strict liability (Brown et al, 1993). Thus, under the tort law, every person is entitled to certain rights and these include the right to be free from bodily harm, the right to enjoy a good reputation, the right to conduct business without unwarranted interference and the right to have one’s property free from damage or trespass. Negligence is an accidental or unintentional tort which occurs quite often in society. In order to succeed in tort suit for negligence as reflected by the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), the plaintiff must prove the existence of all of the following statements: The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty care The defendant failed to act as a reasonable person The breach of duty care was the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff The plaintiff suffered some form of actual harm or injury As such, this essay seeks to answer three tasks related to the given case study and show how these are related to the law of tort. 1. In the case of PC Black and Mrs. de Vere it is advisable that they can sue Mr Brown for making the allegations that they are involved in an adulterous relationship as well as the publishers of the Priestwich Echo for publishing this particular story. They can sue for defamation given that their reputation has been tarnished as a result of these allegations. Basically, Defamation is a group of torts which seeks to protect a person’s reputation from unwarranted attack and at first glance, these may appear to thereby protect privacy (Sweet & Maxwell, 1998). Defamation is divided into two categories namely slander (oral) and libel (published). Individuals can sue for libel as long as the permanent statement is damaging to their reputation, is false and is communicated to more than one person. It is advisable that they approach Mr Brown so that he can retract his statement if they are very sure that that it is a false allegation. If he refuses to offer an apology and retract that statement, they can proceed to file a suit for defamation against him as the allegations have negatively impacted on their reputation. After the publication of this story, the village is awash with this rumour and as a direct consequence of the allegations made by Mr. Brown, Mrs. de Vere was asked by the members of the Women’s Institute to resign from her position as chairwoman of the Institute for bringing the organisation ‘into disrepute.’ It is also advisable that they approach the publishers of the Priestwich Echo to retract the story and offer an apology given that they can prove the story to be wrong. However, it is also advised to Mrs de Vere and PC Black that for libel, the defences available include: justification/truth if the defendant can show that his statement was substantially true, fair comment merely expressing a truly held opinion that is a matter of public interest. Unintentional defamation and this can be retracted and innocent dissemination. The plaintiffs must prove that the statement is defamatory, it has been published and there are special damages for slander. For instance, in the case of (Duncan and Neill para 14.07, Hebditch v MacIlwaine [1894] 2 QB 54 at 58, [1891-4] All ER Rep 444 at 445 per Lord Esher MR and Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 at 318, [1916-17] All ER Rep 157 at 160 per Lord Finlay LC), the jury held the judgement in favour of the defendants given that the issue published was a matter of public interest. It is therefore important that they can prove to the court that a case of defamation has been committed and it has directly impacted on their reputation otherwise they may lose their money for nothing filing for a losing lawsuit. It is advisable to Stuart Farqhuar, the MP to sue the publishers of the Priestwich Echo for publishing a story that is damaging to his reputation as a public figure and he can also sue Mr. Brown for making the allegations. The reporter, Joe Johnson makes reference to unsubstantiated rumours concerning the MP of some financial irregularities at his election headquarters during the General Election, and draws an inference that there may be some truth in what Mr. Brown has said at the meeting. It is the duty of every reporter to verify facts before publishing them in order to avoid lawsuits. In this case, the MP should first of all seek a retraction of the story and a public apology if he can prove that the allegations are untrue. If the publishers refuse to retract the story and offer an apology, it is advised that the MP can sue for libel which constitutes defamation. For instance, the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [1998] 3 WLR 862, [1998] 3 All ER 961, [1998] EMLR 723Court of Appeal (Civil Division) illustrates the significance of the law of defamation. The plaintiff a prominent public figure in Ireland won the case against a British paper for publishing a story related to a political crisis in Ireland which led to the resignation of the plaintiff. The law of defamation is designed to protect a person’s reputation from unwarranted attack and the MP can be compensated for the damage caused to his reputation if he can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his image has been tarnished as a result of the publication of this particular story. Mr Brown can seek personal apology from the MP given that the statement which he made was not published. It may be very difficult for him to pursue this issue in the court of law as it may fall short of the requirements for the jury to prove a case against the plaintiff. It has to be noted that it is costly for the plaintiff to sue for defamation on an individual level hence it is advised for Mr Brown to opt for an out of court settlement with regards to allegations made by the MP. He can ask him to apologise for his statements that were meant to tarnish his image in order to avoid unnecessary costs filing a lawsuit. On the other hand, Ricky Pollard and Nick Nutter can also ask the publication to verify their facts given that the author deliberately falsified information pertaining to their custodial sentence. Indeed, Ricky was convicted and sentenced for two months not the six months as claimed by the reporter. Therefore, if they are concerned about their reputation they can ask the publication to correct the facts about the custodial sentence. 2. Mr. Elliot can sue Ricky Pollard and Nick Nutter for trespass to the person as well as trespass to land. Trespass to the person is also known as assault which according to Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock [1984] is an act, which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person. Basically, this definition covers a wide variety of acts which include striking another person, spitting at another person or throwing something in the direction of another person. These acts are sufficient enough to constitute an assault. It can be noted from the case that Mr Elliot was waylaid by Ricky Pollard and Nick Nutter as he was leaving the venue of the meeting with the intention of assaulting him. The action of these boys instilled so much fear in Mr Elliot such that he had to run for his dear life. According to the case of Stephens v Myers (1830), the act of instilling fear amounts to assault hence a lawsuit can be filed against the defendants. Mr Elliot was hit with a blow which resulted in blood flowing out of his nose and this act is regarded as battery. The application of unlawful force to the body of another person is regarded as battery. In this case, the plaintiff was injured when he was hit on the nose and a case of assault exists. It can be seen that the actions of Ricky Pollard and Nick Nutter constitute an assault hence Mr Elliot can sue them for trespass to the person. The remedies for this king of crime include compensation in monitory terms for the injury suffered by the plaintiff. Indeed, the defendants can lose this particular case hence it is advisable to Mr Elliot to open a suit against them as he suffered an injury as a result of their actions. “The old adage that an “Englishman’s home is his castle” may become his hassle if others, without an express or implied authority unjustifiably interfere with that person’s property rights” (Shorts & deThan, 1998, p.364). It is generally accepted that a person has a right in law to full enjoyment of the use of the land without disruption or interference unless legislation or lawful authority forbids that. Even if there is no harm or damage caused, an action in trespass may still exist. Entering another person’s property without implied or express authority constitutes what is termed trespass to land. In the given case, Ricky and Nick walked around to the back of the plaintiff’s house and climbed over the wall into his yard. Then pressing their faces up against the kitchen window, they both banged on the glass they told him that the next time they were going to meet him they would kick him. According to the law of tort, it can be noted that these boys had no right to enter into the plaintiff’s yard. Basically, trespass to land can be defined as intentionally or negligently entering or remaining on the land belonging to another person. Thus the nature of tort in this particular case is related to direct infringement of the person’s rights. It can also be noted that trespass is actionable without proof of damage. In this case, it can be noted that the defendants intentionally crossed the boundary of the claimant’s land by forcefully entering his yard without consent. Therefore there is need to prove that trespass has been committed and the trespasser had no authority to enter the property. In the case of Winder v. DPP [1996] 160 J.P.R 713, the defendants were charged and convicted of aggravated trespass for intentionally disturbing a fox hunt. Also in the case of Holmes v Wilson and others (1839) the defendants were found guilt for remaining on the plaintiffs land. In this particular case, the defendants remained on Mr Elliot’s land until he threatened that he was going to call the police. In the given case study above, it can be noted that the elements of trespass exist in this particular case. The defendants forcefully entered the yard belonging to Mr Elliot and they remained there. Against this background, it is advisable that Mr Elliot can sue these boys for trespass to land since their actions infringed upon his rights. The tort law is specifically designed to protect individuals against infringement of their rights hence the defendants have a case to answer. Indeed, Mr Elliot has to prove to the court that his rights were infringed in order to get compensation for the damages suffered. In this particular case, compensation can be made in monitory terms when the court has proved a case against the defendants. 3. Remedies sought by the claimants in tort action vary depending on the nature of the offence that has been committed by the defendant. To a larger extent, the remedies in tort cases are effective as they are designed to deter other people from committing the same offences in the future. Remedies are mostly offered in form of money so as to compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered during the commission of the offence by the defendant. In some cases, the remedies can range from small to large sums of money depending on the magnitude of the case. The court can decide that a fine be paid to the plaintiff as compensation for the damage caused and this kind of judgement is very effective as it would deter other people from committing the same offence. As explained above, there are different types of torts and there are also different remedies offered for each offence. However, in order for the court to prove that an offence has been committed, there are certain conditions that have to exist and there are also defences that are meant to protect the rights of the defendants. Therefore, this part of the paper seeks to outline the remedies that can be offered in the event of cases involving trespass to the person, trespass to land and defamation as these constitute tort offences. In order for the plaintiff to prove that a trespass to the person has been committed, he or she must show that such action by the defendant was intended to cause harm or injury or to instil fear in that person. If a person has been assaulted, a lawsuit for trespass to the person can be filed to the court of law which is the highest arbiter of disputes that may exist between people. If found guilty of trespass to the person, the defendant or the person who has committed the offence is usually asked to pay compensation to the plaintiff in the form of money and the sum differs according to the damage suffered by the claimant. This decision is very effective since it would serve as a warning to others to desist from behaving in the same manner as it may attract a fine on their behalf. If the case is serious, a criminal case may be opened against the defendant and this can lead to imprisonment of the offender. However, there are certain defences that can be inferred by the defendants in order to defend their actions. If the battery has been a result of the defendant trying to defend himself, he may be exonerated by the court of law therefore is not liable for any offence. This is illustrated in the case of Lane v Holloway (1968) where the court ruled that an injury caused to the 64 year old man by a 24 year old man was out of self defence. In the event of a lawful arrest, battery can occur if the defendant tries to defeat the course of justice and the plaintiff can lose that case. A police officer can apply some form of force in order effect an arrest and this cannot be treated as trespass to the person. A parent in some cases can use some form of force in order to discipline a child and this cannot be considered as trespass to the person. The other form of defence is in the form of false imprisonment which is illustrated by the case of Meering v Grahame White Aviation Co. Ltd. (1919) when a person was lawfully detained on suspicion that he had stolen something. In the event that a person has been lawfully detained, a case of trespass to the person would be irrelevant. A good example can also be drawn from the case of Bird v Jones (1845) who was assaulted after trying to forcefully pass through a prohibited area. The court ruled out that the plaintiff could have used the other route. Therefore, the following conditions can be used as defence in the case of trespass to the person: any person who has been lawfully arrested can be detained; any lawful sentence of imprisonment passed by a court is not trespass to the person, the Mental Health Acts allow a person to be detained in a mental hospital under certain circumstances and parents and guardians have a right to forbid a child to leave home after a certain period and teachers can detain a child for misbehaviour. In case of trespass to land, the remedies also include compensation in terms of money if the defendant is found guilty. The trespasser can be ejected if he has unlawfully occupied land which does not belong to him. However, there are also defences that can be inferred by the defendants should they wish to challenge the case. People with statutory authority are not liable to trespass to land. Police officers with search warranties, Inland Revenue authorities as well as electricity officials or any other person from the municipality cannot be held liable for trespass since they have the authority to enter the premises. A person with consent by the owner of the place is not liable for trespass and a person who is forced to enter a certain place is also not liable for trespass. If the trespass is necessary, there may be no case against the defendant as illustrated in the case of Copev v Sharp (No 2) [1912). The need to save lives in a threatening situation is always given precedence hence a case of trespass cannot be applicable in such an event. In case of defamation, the remedies to the plaintiff are in form of compensation using money should the defendant found guilty. The sum of money varies depending on the magnitude of the case. However, the defences available for this offence include: justification/truth if the defendant can show that his statement was substantially true, fair comment merely expressing a truly held opinion that is a matter of public interest and unintentional defamation which can be retracted and innocent dissemination. Over and above, it can be noted that the law of torts is specifically designed to protect the rights of the people so that they are not intentionally infringed upon. Under the tort law, every person has a right to be free from bodily harm, the right to enjoy a good reputation, the right to conduct business without unwarranted interference and the right to have one’s property free from damage or trespass. If the defendant is convicted of any of these offences, the plaintiff is entitled to get some remedies in the form of monitory compensation. As noted, the defendants also have certain defences that can be inferred in each case involving tort offenses. Bibliography Brown, GW et al 1993, Understanding business and personal law, 9th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York:NY. Cooke, J 1998, Law of Tort, Pearson Education: London. Defamation- Case law, 31 January, 2007, viewed 15 April, 2012, . Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords, Viewed 14 April, 2012. Howarth, DR & Sullivan, JA, 1999, Tort Cases and Materials, Butterworths: London. Koffman, L & McDonald, E 2007, The Law of Contract, 6th Edition, Oxford University Press: London. McBride, N & Bagshaw, R 2008, Tort law, Longmans: London. Richards, Ludlow & Gibson 200, Tort Law in Principle. 2nd Edition. LBC Shorts, E & deThan, C 1998, Civil Liberties: Legal principles of individual freedom, Sweet & Maxwell: London. Terry, A & Giugni, D 2009, Business and the law, 5th Edition. Cengage Learning: Australia. Read More