CML2117 Introduction To Law, 2008 - Lectures 19 to 21 - Basic Concepts and Case Studies In Tort Law

Education

andy-kaplan-myrth
  • 1. Three lectures on: Private Law: Tort Law: Basic Concepts and Case Studies
  • 2. Purposes of Tort Law Restitution or Redistributing losses
  • 3. Means of Tort Law Compensation
  • 4. e! slid this opy t c Do n’ Remedies •Special damages •Exemplary damages •General damages •Aggravated damages •Future damages •Punitive damages
  • 5. Remedies •Special damages •Punitive damages •General damages •Exemplary damages •Future damages •Aggravated damages
  • 6. intentional torts vs. negligence
  • 7. prosecution intentional torts intentional infliction of nervous shock defamation (libel and slander) trespass to land, trespass to chattels conversion of property private nuisance, public nuisance misrepresentation, fraud intentional interference with
  • 8. Example of definition of a Tort Battery = direct, intentional, offensive or harmful contact Elements: 1. Directness – burden of proof on Plaintiff 2. Intent – burden on Defendant 3. Offensiveness/harm – burden on P – objective test 4. Contact – burden on P Defence: Defence: 1. Consent – who bears the burden of proof? See Scalera on fault (P) vs. rights (D)
  • 9. Negligence Liability for not acting when you should have done something
  • 10. Negligence Liability for not acting when you should have done something
  • 11. Duty of Care Ask: “Is there a duty of care?” ( Not: “What is the duty of care?” )
  • 12. Test for Duty of Care 1. It is Reasonably Foreseeable that injury will result from the action or inaction. a) Proximity b) Risk c) Seriousness 2. Consider public policy reasons to limit liability.
  • 13. Standard of Care Ask: “What is the standard of care?” ( Not: “Is there a standard of care?” )
  • 14. Standard of Care Generally, only a reasonable amount of care is expected.
  • 15. Compensation in Negligence •Physical injury •Mental injury accompanying physical injury •Mental injury alone? •Pure economic damage …even if they have a “thin skull”
  • 16. Defences in Tort These include, •Consent •Self−defence •Necessity •Truth (defence to defamation) …and damages awarded are adjusted for •Contributory negligence
  • 17. Responsibility in Tort •Vicarious liability •Subrogation •Strict Liability •Occupier’s Liability
  • 18. Case Studies
  • 19. Smith v. Stone (1647), 82 E.R. 533 (K.B.). [intent and volition]
  • 20. Gilbert v. Stone (1648), 82 E.R. 539 (K.B.). [duress]
  • 21. Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57. [nervous shock]
  • 22. Ngiam Kong Seng and Another v. Lim Chiew Hock, [2008] SGCA 23. [proximity in nervous shock]
  • 23. Scott v. Shepherd, [1558-1774] All E.R. 296. [directness]
  • 24. Miska v. Sivec, (1959) [provocation]
  • 25. Bird v. Jones, (1845) Herd v. Weardale Steel, (1915) Campbell v. SS Kresge Co. (1976) [false imprisonment]
  • 26. Palsgraff v. Long Island Railway, 1928 NY CA. [for negligence what needs to be foreseeable?]
  • 27. Next class… • Basic Criminal Law Concepts & Theory •Pp. 84−88 and 263−274 • Put the final exam in your calendar: Dec 18, 2pm−5pm, in Colonel By Hall, rm B012
Please download to view
27
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Description
Basic Concepts In Tort Law
Text
  • 1. Three lectures on: Private Law: Tort Law: Basic Concepts and Case Studies
  • 2. Purposes of Tort Law Restitution or Redistributing losses
  • 3. Means of Tort Law Compensation
  • 4. e! slid this opy t c Do n’ Remedies •Special damages •Exemplary damages •General damages •Aggravated damages •Future damages •Punitive damages
  • 5. Remedies •Special damages •Punitive damages •General damages •Exemplary damages •Future damages •Aggravated damages
  • 6. intentional torts vs. negligence
  • 7. prosecution intentional torts intentional infliction of nervous shock defamation (libel and slander) trespass to land, trespass to chattels conversion of property private nuisance, public nuisance misrepresentation, fraud intentional interference with
  • 8. Example of definition of a Tort Battery = direct, intentional, offensive or harmful contact Elements: 1. Directness – burden of proof on Plaintiff 2. Intent – burden on Defendant 3. Offensiveness/harm – burden on P – objective test 4. Contact – burden on P Defence: Defence: 1. Consent – who bears the burden of proof? See Scalera on fault (P) vs. rights (D)
  • 9. Negligence Liability for not acting when you should have done something
  • 10. Negligence Liability for not acting when you should have done something
  • 11. Duty of Care Ask: “Is there a duty of care?” ( Not: “What is the duty of care?” )
  • 12. Test for Duty of Care 1. It is Reasonably Foreseeable that injury will result from the action or inaction. a) Proximity b) Risk c) Seriousness 2. Consider public policy reasons to limit liability.
  • 13. Standard of Care Ask: “What is the standard of care?” ( Not: “Is there a standard of care?” )
  • 14. Standard of Care Generally, only a reasonable amount of care is expected.
  • 15. Compensation in Negligence •Physical injury •Mental injury accompanying physical injury •Mental injury alone? •Pure economic damage …even if they have a “thin skull”
  • 16. Defences in Tort These include, •Consent •Self−defence •Necessity •Truth (defence to defamation) …and damages awarded are adjusted for •Contributory negligence
  • 17. Responsibility in Tort •Vicarious liability •Subrogation •Strict Liability •Occupier’s Liability
  • 18. Case Studies
  • 19. Smith v. Stone (1647), 82 E.R. 533 (K.B.). [intent and volition]
  • 20. Gilbert v. Stone (1648), 82 E.R. 539 (K.B.). [duress]
  • 21. Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57. [nervous shock]
  • 22. Ngiam Kong Seng and Another v. Lim Chiew Hock, [2008] SGCA 23. [proximity in nervous shock]
  • 23. Scott v. Shepherd, [1558-1774] All E.R. 296. [directness]
  • 24. Miska v. Sivec, (1959) [provocation]
  • 25. Bird v. Jones, (1845) Herd v. Weardale Steel, (1915) Campbell v. SS Kresge Co. (1976) [false imprisonment]
  • 26. Palsgraff v. Long Island Railway, 1928 NY CA. [for negligence what needs to be foreseeable?]
  • 27. Next class… • Basic Criminal Law Concepts & Theory •Pp. 84−88 and 263−274 • Put the final exam in your calendar: Dec 18, 2pm−5pm, in Colonel By Hall, rm B012
Comments
Top