Tort Law in the English Legal System - Essay Example

A tort law can be described as a civil wrong not arising from a contract and one should owe due consideration to one’s neighbour (Capiro Industries vs. Dickman 1990). Basically, tort law is a body of rights, obligations and remedies applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief from persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+Law). Whilst the English Common Law does not recognise separate legal action in tort, the English Legal system provides two ways for parties involved which they may follow as far as tort law is concerned. Trespass is identified as a form of redress in case of direct or indirect injury and the system also recognises other civil actions such as defamation as going to be explained in detail below. In the case of tort law, the person who suffers injuries is called a plaintiff and the person who has inflicted those injuries is called a defendant. It is of paramount importance for the claimant to be able to prove that the negligent behaviour of the defendant has caused injuries or loss of business. There are traditionally three elements in the tort action which the plaintiff has to prove in order to be successful in winning the claim. There is need to prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty by falling below expected standards and the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer physical or economic harm (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+Law). Where it can be proved, recovery for loss can be effected by the court of law. As going to be discussed in detail below, there is need to establish three elements in tort action. Tort action also encompasses negligence which is described as the act of doing something a reasonable man would not do and a plaintiff must prove in such a case that the defendant owes a duty of care (Donoghue V. Stevenson 1932). The House of Lords in the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), proposed the adoption of the following conditions where the three stages should be taken into consideration which include; foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. In some cases it may not always follow that a duty of care exists but common sense ought to prevail to avoid an otherwise serious injury to another person or loss of business or profit. Due to the fact that a person may deliberately expose someone to danger or a situation which can cause losses leaves him liable to negligent behaviour where he is expected to have foreseen the imminent consequences of that action. Any reasonable person in such cases that would endanger the next person would be liable for negligent behaviour and may be compelled by the courts of law to offer compensation if the plaintiff can be able to establish the three elements in tort action. It should always follow that some actions are prohibited especially when driving such as parking at undesignated places. Common sense should prevail in some instances where one could have fore seen the consequences of his actions given that they could harm the next person. Given that there will be abundant evidence to show that the negligent action by the defendant resulted in economic loss, compensation for that economic loss can be enforced by the court of law. However, in some cases, there are instances where the plaintiff also contributes to negligence which may result in loss of something. In such a scenario, it may be difficult to get the compensation. In cases where the plaintiff does not contribute anything towards pure economic loss, chances of getting compensation are high. In the case of Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) proximity is described as a situation where a neighbour is a person who is closely and directly affected by somebody’s actions and ought to reasonably take that fact into account. Simply put, the aspect of proximity loosely refers to closeness to somebody which should be taken into consideration to ensure that somebody’s actions should not infringe on another person’s right to enjoy life or to pursue business. In such a situation, every person is obliged to ensure that they do not harm or cause economic losses to the persons close to them by their unprecedented actions which can be dangerous. As far as negligence is concerned, the element of proximity plays a crucial role as it would seek to establish the extent to which the claimant can prove and justify his wishes for a claim by arguing that the resultant loss in any case would have been a result of negligent behaviour by the defendant who would have wrongfully done something in close proximity to the next person. On the other hand, the element of proximity plays a crucial role as it would seek to establish the extent to which the defendant can justify his actions by arguing that the resultant injury to the next person would have been a genuine mistake. Whilst in some cases a duty of care can be established and a breach of it as well, it may not be enough to prove a case of negligence unless some form of damage or loss can be identified. However, there is need to establish the standard expectations of a reasonable man in order to establish if the duty of care has been breached. It does not require great skill or vice versa to observe the duty of care and there are mainly two factors which ought to be considered as a way of trying to establish if the duty of care has been breached. The likelihood and seriousness of risk of injury ought to be taken into consideration when attempting to measure the defendant’s behaviour against the risk he would have exposed the claimant to. For instance, in the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) the editor of Salmond on the Law of Torts similarly says: “There are two factors in determining the magnitude of a risk - the seriousness of the injury risked, and the likelihood of the injury being in fact caused.” Damages in the form of loss of business as a result of negligent behaviour can be cited in this case as proof that the claimant deserves some form of compensation as a result of the loss that would have resulted in the unprecedented behaviour of the defendant. Basically, tortuous behaviour may entitle a ‘victim’ to compensation or some other remedy since the damages caused would be a result of negligent behaviour. Trespassing is another form of tort. In some cases, entering other people’s properties can be classified as trespassing which can further limit the chances of the plaintiff to win his case in the event that he got injured while on the wrong side of the law. In the case of trespass to the person, the duty is to refrain from infringing a person’s bodily integrity. Each human being has a right to own property hence the need to safeguard it against any form of trespassing as it would often expose it to some form of risk. In the event that another person has trespassed into private property and got injured inside, it may be difficult to establish day of duty care. Regardless of the magnitude of danger or injury caused to the injured persons, the property owner is protected by the law since he or she has every right to own private property. Indeed, this is a fact which cannot be contested in the court of law since every person has a right to own property and the law is very clear that any trespassers may be prosecuted if they enter the premises without authorisation. In the event that a trespasser has caused an injury to the owner of property, he would have invaded somebody’s privacy hence liable for paying compensation. It can be noted that there may be no breach of duty care in some cases like accidents. Duty care states that that one’s actions should not negatively impact on the next person who is regarded as a neighbour. If the court of law feels that it is not reasonable or just to infer duty of care in the circumstances surrounding the issue, it may be difficult to establish a duty of care. For instance in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989), the court could not establish that the police owe a duty of care. In some cases the resultant injury to the next person would be a result of genuine mistake or accident where negligent behaviour may be difficult to determine but all the same, for the sake of public as well as individual safety, the duty of care is owed to everyone hence the need to be always on the lookout against such actions which can cause harm or injury to the next person. However, defamation is a bit different from other types of torts in that a person can peddle falsehoods about another person fully knowing for personal or political gain. As far as the notion of duty care is concerned, no person should deliberately do something that would harm the next person’s reputation. To a certain extent, some actions are excessively detrimental to the environment if they go uncontrolled and these may be deliberate. Tort action can be inferred in some instances where such action would be hazardous to the environment and have become a cause for concern. The aims of tort laws are specifically designed to compensate the plaintiff who has suffered a wrong resulting in loss of business. Tort laws are meant to protect the workers in workplaces against deliberate or negligent infliction of stress. On the other hand, they are meant to protect the employer where going against the rules and regulations of the company would come to the conclusion that the offender is liable for tort of negligence in the event that there have been some damages to other people’s properties that would have resulted from such activities of defiance of the company rules. As noted from the above discussion, the character of duty owed mainly defines the tort law. In tort law, specific duties are imposed by the law and are applicable to everyone hence it is advisable to refer all the cases to the courts for arbitration. In summation, it can be noted that tort law is mainly designed to serve four objectives. Firstly, it is designed to offer compensation to victims injured by other people’s negligent behaviour, secondly, it is meant to shift the costs to the responsible people who have caused them. Thirdly, this law is also meant to discourage careless behaviour among the people and fourthly, it is meant to restore legal rights that have been compromised. There is an enforceable tort law in the English legal system that is meant to protect individuals and companies from unprecedented losses caused by other people’s negligent behaviour. Over and above, the duty of care with reference to tort law is imposed by the law and is applicable to everyone. The plaintiffs may claim damages or compensation in the event of loss of property or injury to another person where it can be proved that the day of duty care has been neglected, the defendant has breached the duty by falling below expected standards, the defendant has caused harm to the plaintiff (causation) and that harm would have been reasonably foreseeable (remoteness). References Capiro Industries V. Dickman (1990). Available at: http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CAPARO_1.pdf Accessed on 23 June 2010. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords. Available at: http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20abcd/donoghue_v_Stevenson.htm Accessed on 23 June 2010 Negligence: duty of care and breach of duty (n.d). Available at: http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/tort/tort_ch3.pdf Accessed on 23 June 2010 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 (13 December 1950). Available at http://www.a-level-law.com/caselibrary/PARIS%20v%20STEPNEY%20BOROUGH%20COUNCIL%20%5B1951%5D%20AC%20367%20-%20HL.doc Accessed on 23 June 2010 Negligence: duty of care and breach of duty (n.d) Available at: http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/tort/tort_ch3.pdf Accessed on 23 June 2010 Tort law (n.d.). Available at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+Law Accessed on 23 June 2010 Read More