Lost my direction - A mistake

Lost my direction - A mistake

The earth will never be as round as we thought . The Fullmoon will never last long, It is not as beautiful as we always think it be  . As to what Shakespeare stated in" Life Brief Candle " , Life is just like a walking shadow. In another words , it is just like a candle . Within a second ,it's life is already shorten-ed. Haiz , a sentimental person like me , has such a sensitive sense . Sometimes ,it just makes me become irrational . You know , what is the result if you being so irrational ? Maybe u would say that :" Come on , we are an ordinary man , a common human being ? What is wrong if we did a mistake ?" Well , i will come to answer you that i cannot afford any mistake . It will damage everything i planned for my family . I cannot be so common as if i want the best for my family and people around me . I cannot be so ordinary in order to protect the people i used to spend times with . A mistake has been commit anyway. 

What is happening ? Your natural curiousity will automatic-ly lead you to that question . I cannot disclose 100% here. If you are my close friends , ask me then . It is not a big deal . It is just merely a simple disappointment . It just shouldn't affect me so much ! In fact , a simple disappointment just made me go through a few meaningless weeks . I dont really study and i dont really prepare for my exam. The assignments is still there which i never touch it . It might be stress symptoms. I am a student who always take and run my duty as much as i can . Last times i used to think that i just want to be a normal and average student . I dont want to be so outstanding. Now , i comes to know that if i being so low-profile . Opportunity will not come to me ,even i have to ability to handle and do well if i given such chance . My brothers and sister always tell me that this world is so cruel . I know it ,but i dont really understand it . People who always act so "cool" is actually cruel . (It refers to someone i know,not applicable for world at large) . I tend to always see what people actually think of  or maybe the reason for such an act . All right , if thats what that person want , i'll give him then . Showing off  and so on .  I cant stand with it . Instead of showing off , trying to be so low profile. People around is like cant see it . It is totally fake ! What happened is that , i am not given a chance to do what i desire .Before that, i was told that i got the chance . So , i prepare for it and even dream about it . At the end , I am too late ?? COme on , i had expressed my willingness on that before anyone else . I do everything crucially . I feel like what i have done is actually a waste . So , for weeks i am in a bad condition. I watched at least 2 drama series and movies , surf net and so on . Something that meaningless. I feel like even if i do everything i should do , still someone who run strategy will get it . Oh my gosh , i feel so unsecured . Yes , this is what the real world . I really need time to get used to it . I always think that i will only happen when i am working in the future . It is not true , just false . It happened anywhere , anytime ,any field . In addition , i have no one to talk with . First , i dont express my feeling to my family. I dont want to let them so pity  for me . I just dont want them to worry about me . Well , thats what i do . I always keep problem inside me ,beyond me . I always solve it by myself. However , i got my brothers who always give me counsel and share everythings with me . He is 30yrs old businessman , experienced in many fields. Since i know him , my problems getting less and lesser . He always know when i am hiding something. Now , i seldom go to meet him since i am on the holidays to prepare for my exam . My best friend who i always spend time with is gone .So, i am alone. If u ask me . Do i have any friends ? Friends? I got a lot , but those who i can actually share thought. Few...... And yet i have to perform my duty as a brother . Siblings now getting so stubborn and have their own thought. Not mature enough to talk with . Thats so stressful . Trying so hard to be a good brother , and yet they are not appreciate it . Honestly , i do everythings to everyone for everyone is without any selfishness or self-benefit. I can even swear that i give my sincerity for anything i have done.I dont need any pay back , just need a simple appreciation. 

The first mistake , i shouldn't promise my dad that i will spend all my time to prepare my studies .So i no need to stay at home and dont get the chance to meet my fellow brothers and sisters . I will surely wont be so down. I will have better motivation to study ! These fellow brothers and sisters , i will appreciate them until the end  of my entire life. I wont forget those who helped me . Thats really true. I wont forget and will never forget . Besides if i have memory loss medically. Seriously, i really take them as my bros and sis. Now , i having a conflict between myself. Whether i wanna go to UK to read law ? I will not see them for years. 

Second mistake , i should not spend most of my time in front of my computer just to watch . It is not a good way to express my dissatisfaction and my sadness. I should study more harder to prove that they are wrong .As to what my brother said , once you very busy and without good base to handle , you will have problem . Now, it is proven . I am having problem . 

Yes , life is so challenging . For me , what had happened around me will not change my personality. But, i do learn a lesson. The sun will not be seen for long . But it always there. Just like justice . Maybe its not representable , but it is there .Maybe what i have done is not being appreciate by people , but it doesnt mean what i have done is a waste.

Junhong , Come on. YOu are tough enough ! I always said that it is not a big issue if u fall down , but it is a serious matter whether you can stand up or not . I am a boy who keep felling down and stand up . The process will keep running. I believe that after everything a little junny boy will finally bcome a man . A man who is protective and help people around me .

Negligence cont - Breach , causation & remoteness

NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE

Essential Elements in the Tort of Negligence1. Duty of care2. Breach of Duty of Care3. Causation2.

BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE.

Has the Defendant done something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do?

Has the Defendant failed to do something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable man would do?

STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED IS THAT OF HYPOTHETICAL REASONABLE MAN.

(Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co – 1856) ‘MAN IN STREET’, ‘MAN IN CLAPHAM OMNIBUS’.OBJECTIVE (no account of idiosyncrasies of the person whose conduct is in question)OBJECTIVE – Not distorted by personal feelings or bias.

ESTABLISHING BREACH OF DUTY OF CAREThe Court must determine whether:a. The Defendant has done something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do ORb. The Defendant has failed to do something which a reasonable man would do.

MUST ASSESS HOW REASONABLE MAN WOULD BEHAVECONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:1. The Magnitude of the riskCan occur in 2 ways:1. High risk as so likely to happen2. High risk as consequences of it happening are so serious for Claimant.The greater the risk, the more precautions have to be taken.

Bolton v Stone – HL – 1951The claimant was standing in the road when she was struck by a cricket ball which was hit out of the defendants’ ground. The evidence was this had happened 6 times in preceding 30 years. It was held that the risk was so small that the defendants were justified in not taking further measures to eliminate the risk.(Imagine military training area with live ammunition)

Paris v Stepney Borough Council – 1951-HLThe Claimant who had only one good eye, went completely blind when, during the course of his employment a chip of metal entered his good eye. He sued his employer for negligence, contending that as his employer knew he only had one good eye, they should have provided him with goggles. The employer’s defence was that it was not customary to provide goggles to their employees.Lord Morton said “The more serious the damage which will happen if an accident occurs, the more thorough are the precautions which an employer should take”. The employer was found in breach of his duty of care in failing to provide goggles.2. The cost and practicality of measures to overcome the risk.

Latimer v AEC Ltd – 1953 – HLThe floor of the Defendant’s factory became flooded after heavy rain. The water mixed with some oil and the floor became slippery. The Defendant sprinkled sawdust but did not have sufficient sawdust to cover the entire floor. The claimant employee slipped on an uncovered area of the floor and sustained an injury. The claimant alleged that the Defendant was negligent in failing to close the factory that day and send the workers home. The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of the case the employer had taken reasonable precautions and was not in breach of duty.(Where risk great employer may have to close business – fire and structural damage).

3. The purpose of the Defendant’s ActWatt v Herford CC – 1954 – CAA Fireman was injured by the movement of a heavy jack whilst travelling in a lorry which was not properly equipped to carry it. The Jack had been placed on the lorry as it was urgently needed to save the life of a woman who had become trapped under a bus. Held that in these circumstances the Defendants were justified in exposing the claimant to the risk.Denning “The saving of life or limb justifies taking considerable risk”

.TEST OF REASONABLE MAN v CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFENDANTLegal standards generally take no account of the personal characteristics of the Defendant.Not sufficient for Defendant to say did incompetent best. Inexperience of lack of intelligence or slow reactions provide no excuse to a charge of negligence. Nor will a defendant be able to rely on disability – a partially sighted driver and learner driver owe the same duty of care as one with normal sight. But are cases which are approached differently

.1. ChildrenMullin v Richards – 1998 – CATwo 15 year old girls engaged in play fight with plastic rulers. One of the rulers broke and a bit of plastic entered the eye of one of the girls (the Claimant) causing her to lose her sight in that eye.Hutchinson LJ said:“The test of foreseeability is an objective one; but the fact that the first defendant was at the time a 15 year old schoolgirl is not irrelevant. The question for the judge is not whether the actions of the defendant were such as an ordinarily prudent and reasonable adult in the defendant’s situation would have realised gave risk to the injury….the test is whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 15 year-old schoolgirl in the defendant’s situation would have realised as much”.

2. ProfessionalsPersons holding themselves out as having a particular skill or profession must attain the standard of the reasonably competent person exercising that skill or profession.Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957McNair J said “..where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test,, is not the test of the man on the top of the Clapham Omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. It is the test of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have this special skill….

A doctor is not negligent if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art”.FACTS: the claimant had undergone electroconvulsive therapy which resulted in serious injuries. He alleged negligence and said he should have been informed of the risk of fracture before he consented to the treatment and that the drugs should have been given to him before the therapy to make him more relaxed.HELD: Not negligent because the practices were consistent with those in other hospitals.NOTE: It is part of professional’s duty to keep abreast of new developments and techniques.

3. CAUSATION.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee 1968.

The Claimant’s husband became ill after drinking tea which contained arsenic. He was taken to hospital but the doctor in casualty did not examine him and admit him. Instead, he asked the claimant’s husband to see his own GP. A few hours later he died.1. Did the Doctor owe a duty of care?

2. Was the Doctor in breach of his duty?

3. Did the Claimant’s husband suffer harm?HOWEVER, had the Doctor not been negligent and admitted the Claimant’s husband to hospital, the Claimant’s husband would still have died.

Doctor’s negligence did not cause death.“BUT FOR” TEST“If harm to the claimant would not have occurred “but for” the Defendant’s negligence then that negligence is a cause of the harm…if the loss would occur in any event, the defendant’s conduct is not a causeThe “but for” test will not always solve the problem. IE where two simultaneous wrongs are done to the claimant, each of which would in itself be sufficient to cause the damage. In this case the test leads to the absurd result that neither breach is a cause of the damage.

CONCURRENT CAUSES.Fitzgerald v Lane -1988 – HLClaimant crossing road when two cars, driven by D1 and D2 hit him and he sustained neck injury. Both drivers were found to be negligent. Issue – causations. Evidence could not establish which driver caused injury to his neck. Both drivers held jointly liable.Hale v Hants & Dorset Motor Services – 1947Branches of a tress owned by D1, were overhanging a highway. D2’s employee drove a bus too near the pavement side of the road and a branch shattered a window on the bus, injuring a passenger. Both D1 and D2 were held to be negligent and both were liable.CONSECUTIVE CASESBaker v Willoughby – 1970 – HLClaimant’s left leg was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. Before the court case, the Claimant was shot to the leg by robbers at his work place. The leg had to be amputated.Defendant argues that should only be liable to compensate the Claimant until the date of the shooting as the second injury obliterated (wiped out) the first.HELD: Claimant’s right of recovery was not limited to the loss suffered only before the robbery. He was entitled to damages that he would have received had there been no subsequent injury.LORD REID“A man is not compensated for the physical injury; he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury. His loss is not in having a stiff leg: it is his inability to lead a full life. The second injury does not diminish this. Why should it be regarded as having obliterated or superseded them??If the later injuries merely become a concurrent cause of the disabilities caused by the injury inflicted by the defendant, then in my view they cannot diminish the damages”

Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd – 1982 – HLIn 1973 the claimant suffered injury as a result of a tortuous act of his employer. The injury reduced his earning capacity. In 1976 the claimant started suffering from a spinal disease which meant that he could not work at all.HELD: the Defendant had to compensate the Claimant for his reduced earning capacity from 1973-1976 but not thereafter. The reasoning was that the illness is a vicissitude of life and as such should be a factor taken into account in assessing damages for future loss of earnings.

LORD WILBERFORCE“I think that Lord Reid’s theory of concurrent causes even if workable on the particular facts of Baker v Willoughby (where successive injuries were sustained by the same limb) is as a general solution not supported by the authority he invokes not workable in other cases”.

3A. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE (LEGAL CAUSATION)Where damage or injury which has occurred is far removed from the cause of the damage or injury.Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. 1921Defendants were charterers of a ship. Stevedores (those employed to load/unload ships) employed by the charteres negligently dropped a plank into the hold of the ship. Tins of petrol had been stored in the hold and there was petrol vapour in the hold. The plank fell on something, causing a spark which ignited the vapour. There was a fire and the entire ship was destroyed. Although the Defendants could foresee the spark could cause some damage, they couldn’t reasonably foresee entire ship would be destroyed. HELD LIABLE for consequences of actions.Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock Engineering Co. (The Wagon Mound No. 1) – 1961 – Privy CouncilThe Defendants had negligently allowed some oil from their ship to spill into Sydney Harbour. The Claimant owned a wharf in the harbour and was carrying out some welding work. Sparks from the welding ignited waste material in the water and the oil caught fire causing damage to the Claimant’s wharf.HELD: The Defendants could not reasonably foresee that oil spread thinly on the water would catch fire. NOT LIABLE.Viscount Simonds said“the test in Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law….For it does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that, for an act of negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage, the actor should be liable for all consequences, however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be “direct”.Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable.If reasonably foreseeable, it matters not that the actual damage is far greater in extent than could have been foreseen.Smith v Leech Brain & Co. 1962Mr Smith suffered a burn on his lip. The tissues of his lip were prone to cancer. The burn developed into cancer and he died.HELD: LIBALE – ie tortfeasor takes victim as he finds him.Question is whether Defendants could reasonably foresee type of injury – burn – they could.3B INTERVENING CAUSESIn some cases the claimant’s damage is attributable not to breach of duty but some intervening act. Act breaks chain of causation.McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts Ltd – HL – 1969The Claimant’s leg would give way without warning as a result of an injury caused by the Defendant’s negligence. Whilst descending a steep flight of steps without assistance or support, Claimant’s leg gave way. He fell and fractured his ankle.HELD not liable. Although foreseeable, Claimant’s act so unreasonable.Note: lack of consistency, masking policy factors at play in judicial process.

Negligence in tort - Duty of care

DUTY OF CARE

NEGLIGENCE as a tort is the breach of a duty of care, owed by the defendant to the claimant which results in damage.

DAMAGE may be caused by MISFEASANCE or NONFEASANCE.

DAMAGE may consist of 

PERSONAL INJURY
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
PURE ECONOMIC LOSS
PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGE “NERVOUS SHOCK”


ESTABLISHING A DUTY

Donoghue v Stevenson – HofL – 1932

Seminal case, firmly established negligence as an independent tort.

Lord Atkin attempted to trace a common thread through earlier case-law to set out a principle for determining whether a duty of care exists.

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.”

3 Formal requirements for establishing whether a duty of care exists

1. Foreseeability of harm
2. Proximity in relationship between Claimant and Defendant
3. Just and reasonable to impose duty

Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson, had to bring case into existing categories of relationship and find comparable case. Indeed, even today, whether a duty is capable of existing does not often cause problems since the issue will be governed by precedent. However, in a novel situation, these 3 formal requirements will have to be satisfied.

The relative significance to be attached to each requirement will depend upon a variety of factors including, inter alia:

- the status of the parties and their relationship with one another.
- the nature of the harm suffered.
- The particular way in which the harm arises.

Where positive conduct by Defendant causes direct physical injury to Claimant or Claimant’s property, reasonable foresight of such harm will generally be sufficient to satisfy the other criteria for the existence of a duty.
However, in other cases involving PURE ECONOMIC LOSS, OMISSIONS, PSYCHIATRIC INJURY, foreseeability of harm, never alone sufficient to establish duty.

PURE ECONOMIC LOSS

Financial loss consequent upon negligently inflicted injury to person or property is ordinarily recoverable.

PURE ECONOMIC LOSS courts are much more reluctant to impose liability. Courts don’t wish to burden the Defendant with liability in “ an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”.

PURE ECONOMIC LOSS can occur through negligent statements and/or negligent acts.

Negligent Statements

Prior to 1964 liability for misstatements existed in contract, in tort of deceit or for breach of fiduciary duty.

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd – Hof L 1964

The Claimants wanted to know if they could safely advance credit to their client X. The Claimants’ bankers sought references from the defendants’, X’s, Bankers, who gave favourable reports “without responsibility”.
Claimants relied on information and suffered financial loss when X went into liquidation.

HELD: No duty arose because of the disclaimer. However, HofL went on to say that in appropriate circumstances a duty could arise. Requirements:

- Foresight of harm
- Special relationship

The special relationship exists where, to Defendant’s knowledge, the Claimant relied upon the Defendant’s skill and judgement or ability to make a careful inquiry and it was reasonable in the circumstances for the Claimant to do so.

Concept of REASONABLE RELIANCE.

Negligent Acts

There was originally no liability for pure economic loss caused by negligent acts.

Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martin and Co (Contractors) Ltd CA 1973

The defendants negligently damaged a power cable cutting off the electricity supply to the claimants’ factory, as a result of which the claimants suffered damage to their property reflected in loss of profit thereon, together with pure loss of profit during the interruption to the supply. The claimants succeeded in the first part of their claim but failed to recover profit they would have made but for the power cut.

Hedley Bryne v Heller made a major inroad upon the principle that economic loss was generally not recoverable.

Current position is economic loss caused by negligent acts is generally irrecoverable unless it can be brought within the parameters of Hedley Byrne.

Policy Arguments:

- Don’t want to burden Defendant with liability “in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”.
- To permit recovery in tort would introduce a transmissible warranty of quality in absence of any contract.


PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire – HofL – 1991

Lord Ackner said shock “involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event, which violently agitates the mind”.

- Recognisable psychiatric or physical illness: mere grief or emotional upset is not actionable.
- Can be no recovery for psychiatric illness “caused by the accumulation over a period of time of more gradual assaults on the nervous system”.

Lord Oliver said shock victims fall into one of two groups:

(i) Those who are unwilling participants in the events causing shock (primary victims)
(ii) Those who are merely passive and unwilling witnesses (secondary victims)

HELD: With regard to those in the first group, if the Defendant’s negligent conduct foreseeably puts the Claimant into that position, it follows that there will be a sufficiently proximate relationship between them to create a duty of care.

However, for those in second group, to recover damages must prove the following:

(i) That the relationship to the primary victim was sufficiently close that it was reasonable foreseeable that he might suffer shock if he apprehended that the victim had been, or might be injured.
(ii) That he was temporally and spatially close to the scene of the accident or its immediate aftermath.
(iii) That he suffered shock through sight or hearing of the accident or its immediate aftermath.

Nervous shock cases fall within a distinct category subject to special rules and reasonable foresight of shock alone is not sufficient to give rise to a duty.

OMISSIONS

General Rule is that a Defendant does not owe a duty to take positive action to prevent harm to others. Thus, a rescuer who goes to the assistance of others in peril is under no legal obligation to do so.

Exceptions

A. The nature of the relationship between the parties may place one person under a duty to prevent harm to the Claimant caused by an independent act of a third party

- employer/employee
- occupier/visitor

B. May also be a special relationship between the defendant and the third party where there is a positive obligation to control the third party

- gaoler/prisoner
- parent/child
- employer/employee

C. Liability might also arise where the defendant negligently causes or permits to be created a source of danger and it is reasonably foreseeable that third parties may interfere with it and thereby cause damage.

SPECIFIC IMMUNITIES

Situations arise where, for public policy reasons a duty of care is found not to exist.

Advocates

Rondel v Worsley – HofL – 1969 Held that advocates could not be sued for negligently conducting a case in court. The policy argument was that to fulfil their duty to the court and administration of justice, an advocate must be free from the threat of negligence.

This decision was overruled in the case of Hall v Simmons (Hof L 2000). Court said the public interest in advocates’ immunity in negligence must be balanced with the normal right for an individual to be compensated for a legal wrong.

Police

In performing their function of investigating and preventing crime, the police owe no duty of care to an individual member of the public.

This blanket immunity was reviewed in Osman v Ferguson – 1993. The Claimant and his father were shot by a teacher who was a known threat to his victims. The ECHR stated that the “blanket immunity” breached Art 6 of the ECHR.

English courts must not simply apply a blanket immunity but balance whether the public interest in granting such immunity is proportionate to the interference with the Claimant’s human rights.

Rescue Services

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council – CA - 1997

The Court of Appeal ruled that fire brigades are not under a common law duty of care to answer an emergency call nor under a duty to take reasonable care to do so. Unless the fire service negligently increase the damage or causes additional damage, liability in tackling a fire will not arise.

Unborn Children

In Burton v Islington Health Authority (1993) it was held that a duty of care is owed to an unborn person which becomes actionable on the birth of the child.

However, in McKay v Essex Health Authority – CA - 1982 it was held that the common law recognises no right for “wrongful life” whereby a child claims that s/he would not have been born at all but for the Claimant’s negligence. To allow a child to recover damages for pain and suffering of being alive was against public policy.

Similarly in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board - HL – 1999 it was held that claims in respect of financial costs of bringing up a healthy child following advice about or negligent performance of a sterilisation were not recoverable.

Policy – birth of normal baby is blessing not detriment.

CONCLUSION

What see in “immunities” cases is judges making decisions based on public policy considerations.

Some would say the language used by judges in dealing with the duty issue tends to mask the fact that the decision whether or not a duty exists as a matter of law is ultimately based upon public policy.

Indeed, as Lord Pearce observed in Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners:

“How wide the sphere of the duty of care in negligence is to be laid depends ultimately on the courts’ assessment of the demands of society for the protection from the carelessness of others.”

CONTRACT AND TORT

Where does Tort fit in system of English Law?

PUBLIC LAW PRIVATE LAW
Involving Public Authority Civil Obligations
Constitutional Law Property Law
Administrative Law Contract Law
Criminal Law Tort

Individual v State Claimant v Defendant
________________________________________________________________


Tort and Contract

Definitions

TORT “Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law: this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for damages”

CONTRACT “Most contracts take the form of an agreement, that is to say, each party agrees to accept the promise or promises of the other in return for the promise or promises made by itself”

Similarities

Both tort and contract create civil law obligations.
Breach of both types give rise to an action for damages.
Civil courts have jurisdiction to hear contract and tort claims.

Differences

1. As a general rule contractual obligations are voluntarily undertaken but in law of Tort there is no free choice – law imposes the obligation.
2. A person who enters into a contractual obligation owes only a duty to the other party to the contract. In tort owe duty to everyone not to use violence against them, not to trespass on property belonging to others, not to defame them.
3. Generally, liability in contract is strict, while tortious liability is based on fault.
4. Generally, contractual liability is imposed on a person who has not done what promised to do. In tort imposed on someone who has done something should not have done or has failed to do something should have done.
5. Damages: the object of awarding damages in contract is to put claimant in position would have been in had contract been performed. In tort, it is to put the claimant in the position he would have been in had the tort not happened.

SOURCES OF LAW

Statute

A statute is a law passed by Parliament. Statutory Law is known as legislation. In the UK, Parliament is the supreme legal authority. A statute can change the law developed by judges in courts. A judge in a court of law can interpret a statute but cannot change it even if he thinks there is a defect in a statute. Only Parliament can change a statute by passing another statute.

Cases

Much of the English Law had been created and developed by judges when they give judgements in disputes which come before the courts. When judges decide a case, they not only have to give a decision in favour of one party or another – they have to give a reason for the decision.

The reasons for the decision are known as the ratio decidendi. The binding principle of law in a case is found in the ratio decidendi.

House of Lords
Court of Appeal
Divisional Court
High Court
Crown Court
County Court
Magistrates Court


GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY

Liability arises out of a wrongful act or omission
Note: there are situations where one person is liable for another’s wrongful act or omission – Vicarious Liability.

Generally, tortious liability is based on “fault” of the defendant.
“Fault” means that the claimant must prove that the defendant committed the act (or omitted to act) intentionally or negligently.

Generally, the claimant must prove that s/he has suffered damage which is not too remote a consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.


AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE LAW OF TORTS

Compensation for harm (Unliquidated damages)

Prevent continuation of harm (Injunction)

Punishment of wrongdoer (Defamation: court can award exemplary damages)
Deterrence

Justice

Restoration for Unjust Enrichment (Claimant may sue someone wrongfully detaining goods)


INTERESTS PROTECTED BY LAW OF TORTS

PERSONAL INTERESTS

Intentional interference with personal interests

Battery – the direct and intentional application of physical force to the person of another without lawful justification.

Assault – an act which directly and intentionally causes the claimant reasonably to apprehend a battery is about to be committed against him by the defendant.

False Imprisonment – an act which directly and intentionally places a total restraint upon the claimant’s freedom of movement without lawful justification.


Negligent Interference with personal interests

Negligence – the tort of negligence is committed when the defendant’s breach of his duty of care causes physical damage to the claimant.

Occupier’s Liability – an occupier is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who come onto his premises – covers farmer, garage owner, householder.

Breach of Statutory Duty

Breach by the defendant of an obligation imposed upon him by statute may enable a person injured by the breach to bring a civil action for damages for “breach of statutory duty”. Health and Safety at work Legislation imposes many duties on employers. If, in breach of the Legislation, the employer can be found liable without proof of negligence or intention (no fault).


PROPERTY INTERESTS

Intentional Interference with property interests

Tort of Conversion – where defendant deals with the claimant’s goods in such a way it is wrongful denial of the claimant’s rights to the goods ( sell car without knowledge).

Trespass to Goods – tear page from book without consent.

Trespass to Land – intentionally go on someone’s land without permission of owner.

Neglient Interference with property interests

Interference with property interests without negligence or intention

Nuisance – the claimant may bring an action where the defendant unlawfully interferes with his use or enjoyment of his land. In Adams v Ursell (HC 1913), the smell from a fried-fish shop was held to constitute a nuisance to nearby residents. To cause an encroachment upon the Claimant’s land of some tangible thing such as tree roots may be actionable (Davy v Harrow Corp – CA 1958).


ECONOMIC INTERESTS

Intentional Interference with economic interests

False Representation – defendant makes a false statement knowing it to be false or without belief in its truth; intends claimant to rely on the statement and act upon it; claimant does rely and act upon it; claimant suffers economic loss.

Unlawful interference with trade – eg tort of conspiracy where 2 or more traders get together to act so as to cause damage to the trade of another.

Negligent Interference with economic interests

Tort of Negligence – in certain circumstances, a person who commits a negligent act or makes a negligent statement and causes economic loss to another is liable to make compensation.

Builders and contractors are liable to those who suffer loss caused by defects in buildings.


INTERESTS IN REPUTATION

Defamation – the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking people generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid him. In Berkoff v Burchill – CA – 1996, a majority of the Court of Appeal held that to describe a film actor and director as ‘hideously ugly’ was capable of being defamatory in that it could lower his standing in the public’s estimation and make him an object of ridicule.

MISUSE OF PROCESS

Malicious Prosecution – the tort of malicious prosecution protects a person who has been wrongfully subjected to judicial proceedings by another who has acted maliciously in bringing proceedings.

law and justice

Law and Justice in Society Martin Luther King once stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Would most people agree with this statement by this highly lauded historical figure? It is very possible that a majority of the people in the world would acquiesce to the powerful words of Dr. Martin Luther King. What about those that would disagree with this statement? What would their argument against this utterance be? Is unknown injustice still a threat to justice everywhere? For instance, if someone had the power of invisibility and stole a couple thousand from a prominent individual, would that threat justice? If Socrates was alive in our century, these could very well be the type of questions he might pose. Socrates was well-known for asking questions that nobody really wanted vocalized because they were thought of as unthinkable. This inquisitive personality ultimately led to Socrates’ death by execution. It is difficult to comprehend how Socrates was still committed to “justice” even though the very government he loved actually put him to death. One may accept Socrates’ reasoning in affirming that to abide by the rules to vindicate your belief in the laws, upholds justice as well as presenting a good-nature rather than foolishness.

If to abide by the laws, would be to preserve justice then laws preserve justice. This statement is a premise that Socrates could have believed in. Many may think that Socrates was a fool to accept his fate and not try to escape. At first glance, it seems like Socrates was beetle headed not to escape. If one takes a deeper look into the mind of Socrates, one might realize that he has a complicated set of morals. Socrates believed in following the laws, but he also has faith in his God. There may seem to be a conflict between both beliefs. In Apology, written by Plato, Socrates states, “Men of Athens, I honor and love you, but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy.” His morals apply to God in conjunction with the laws set by the government in Athens.

It is fascinating to watch Socrates’ mind work. He follows a natural law of questioning and then when he is facing death by execution, he abides by the laws of the government that condemned him. Socrates takes the martyr's position that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it; for doing injustice injures the soul, while suffering injustice purifies it. In the Crito he maintains his conviction that it is just and best to obey the law, even though it means his own extinction. Socrates discussed justice in situations where others, such as Crito, might have thought other considerations were more important, because for Socrates justice was apparently most important. Socrates philosophy concerning justice can possibly apply to present day events as well.

Webster’s Dictionary defines justice as being “the quality of being righteous.” One has to question himself and ask, “What is righteousness?” Is there a definitive answer to that question? If something is viewed as right, does the opposite view have to be wrong? We each have instilled in us by our parents a set of moral standards. Society sometimes looks at the standards it sets for itself and when someone does something not according to those standards, it seems to be wrong or immoral. For example, the tragedy that happened on Tuesday September 11, 2001 was certainly something our entire society as well as most of the free world considered to be immoral and wrong. What were the terrorists thinking? Did they feel that their actions were abiding by their own set of moral codes and standards? Our society never imagined something as horrendous as this terrorist attack happening. We have always thought that we were invincible to these type of events and that our morals were more or less upheld around the country. Unfortunately, we found out Tuesday that some people have a different set of moral codes completely different from our own. In their eyes, they felt that what they did was for a just cause. We could never understand their point of view. Their reasoning just seems obviously wrong to us. Our society sees murder as something so terrible and ghastly that it automatically labels it as unjust or wrong. If we thought about it a little more deeply, we’d find that killing or ending a life is only wrong in certain circumstances. In regards to capital punishment, many people do not see that as a compromise to our societal standards. They see it as something righteous and moral when a person is electrocuted or injected with lethal chemicals for murdering someone else. Many thoughtful questions arise from this scenario.

Is it right to essentially end someone’s life if they themselves murdered another person? When we study history, we learn about the Code of Hammaurabi and how immoral those set of laws were. In ancient Babylonian times, they considered it as a form of justice. The famous quote, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” in some way still applies today. If someone is murdered in today’s society, some states believe that the murderer should have his life ended for his actions. Is not this form of punishment similar to the Code of Hammaurabi, which history deems as inhumane? When we question these norms of everyday life, are we ultimately saying that we are immoral in many aspects? Socrates would probably encourage these questions, because they make us examine our lives and reflect on how moral we actually are. In many instances we may find contradictions to our way of life.

From examining Socrates’ reasons in affirming that to abide by the rules to vindicate your belief in the laws, upholds justice as well as presenting a good-nature rather than foolishness, we may agree or disagree. Our society may have a lot of introspection to do. If we question our way of life, we probably will see how we exhibit different strengths and faults. The amount of faults may surprise us because of our beliefs in the laws that promote justice. We might find that we’re not as moral as we think we are.

Its just an article that i found in a website.It is not copyright by any party.I used it as a reference here.

Wow...MOOting Comp3TitiON....

I mIght take part in a mooting competiton which it going to held at Taylors University College soon by 31 April....I think its the right path to start my jOURNey in law ...

Here is the case about ,

In the Court of Appeal

The Laker Polytechnic, and Redbanks and Sons v Forsyte

The Laker Polytechnic contracted out the building of a new hall of residence to Redbanks and Sons, contractors, in June 2006. The intended site for the hall was part of the existing main Polytechnic campus, and work commenced there in November 2006. The contractors surrounded the building site with a three strand wire fence and erected notices at intervals round the fence stating “DANGER, NO UNAUTHORISED ENTRY.” In addition the Polytechnic authorities placed a notice at the main entrance to the Polytechnic stating that the Polytechnic would accept no liability for accidents to entrants on to the Polytechnic premises, “howsoever caused.”
John Forsyte, a humanities student, attended a disco in the students’ union in February 2007, and on his way home decided to take a short cut across the building site. He climbed over the wire fence and shortly afterwards fell down a shaft that the contractors had dug for the foundations of the new building. John Forsyte was seriously injured in this accident and brought an action founded on Occupiers’ Liability against both the Polytechnic authorities and the contractors, Redbanks and Sons, claiming damages.
In the High Court, Murphy J. assessed Forsyte’s damages at £50, 000 but reduced them to £25,000 on account of Forsyte’s contributory negligence which he assessed at 50 per cent. His Lordship held that the defendants were liable for breach of duty in section 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and awarded damages of £25, 000 against the defendants, holding that they were liable as joint controlling occupiers, to the extent of 50 per cent. each.
The Polytechnic and the contractors now appeal against the award of damages on the following grounds.
(1) The notice at the entrance to the main Polytechnic campus was effective in excluding the liability for Forsyte’s injury.
(2) In ignoring the notices posted around the building site by the contractors warning him of the danger and in subsequently entering the site, Forsyte had consented to the risk of being injured on the site.

Any opinion due to this ?

I hope we will beat Taylor...hehe.....However, if i do take part , i will do my research or preparation crucially....Do my Best !! Yes, im willing to go the distance ! If the opportunity come to me , i will, take it. Seriously, i give up too much......

My friends , i gave up again ! I did not take part in this mooting competition . In fact , i am really interested on it . I am willing to stand up and present the case . Unfortunately , my lecturer registered my friend's name. He said im too late to express my willingness to take part . But, BUT ...Indeed,I told him by using sms and he replied that i am IN ! It is totally unfair . Maybe he got certain reason for that , i am not goin to ask him why . Maybe i am not good enough ? maybe i dont get an A for my AS level law last year ? Maybe im not presentable ?

My classmate, Rebecca ask me to join in and she wanted to give me the opportunity .I refuse just as if like i dont interested . U know what? No matter what , no matter how i disagree or unsatisfied with what my lecturer had done . It is morally and ethicly correct that i accept and respect his decision . He most probaly think that 2 of my friends will make a great team.

I am quite down for that actually . I am now comes to understand that people who always sit down there and do his work is however not the right candidate . In contrast , people who always trying to impress people with some sort of thinking and speaking always got the chance . Of course ,2 of  my friend is dont do that . They have the potential .

This world is still come to realistic when it deal with some form of materialism or competition . If u r not good enough to show yout talent or your abilities , You are eliminated . You are out . Wow , i am shock with this society ! Which means we need to have strategies FOR ANYTHING EVERYTHING? in order to achieve ? I am not that strategiable . I am not that realistic . I am just not not and not .

My college moot team ! Good luck ! Both of u will surely make a great team.