You are on page 1of 33

LAW OF TORTS

AMIRAH BT SALMAN
BEQ090003
OUTLINE - TRESPASS

INTRODUCTION
TRESSPASS TO LAND
 Elements of trespass
 Mental state of defendant: Basely V. Clarkson
 Interference: Gregory V. Piper

POSSESSION
TRESPASS TO RELATION
INTERFERENCE
OUTLINE - TRESPASS

TRESPASS TO HIGHWAY
 DPP V. Jones
TRESPASS TO SUBSOIL
TRESPASS TO AIRSPACE
 Pickering V. Rudd
CONTINUING TRESPASS
 Konskier V. Goodman
TRESPASS AB INITIO
 Cinnamond V. British Airport Authority


OUTLINE – NEGLIGENCE (Duty of Care)

INTRODUCTION
 Negligence
 Duty of Care
NEIGHBOURHOOD TEST
 NEIGHBOURHOOD PRINCIPLE
 Donoghue V. Stevenson
 Home Office V. Dorsett Yacht
 Peabody Donation V. Lindsay Parkinson
 Sathu V. Hawthornden Rubber Estate Co. Ltd
 Sivakumaran V. Yu Pan

REVISED TEST
 Anns V. Merton London BC
CURRENT TEST
 Caparo Ind. V. Dickman
OUTLINE – NEGLIGENCE (Breach of Duty)

Reasonable Man Test


 Glasgow V. Muir
Level of Intelligence
Professional Defendant
 Phillips
V. Whitely
 Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management
INTRODUCTION
• Tort comes from Latin word tortus,
which means wrung.
• So TORT means WRONG.
• It is a wrongful act not authorized by
law.
TRESPASS TO LAND
• Definition: An
unjustifiable/unreasonable
interference with another’s
possession of land.
• An intentional tort & committed
against someone who owns the
land.
• Actionable per se (without proving
the damage)
– Irregardless if landlord can prove
damage /not
ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS
• Mental state of defendant
– Even if defendant didn’t intent to do
the alleged act/without intention,
there must be a voluntary act in
entering the plaintiff’s land.
 CASE: BASELY V. CLARKSON
 FACTS: Defendant accidentally mowed
plaintiff’s land while mowing his own
grass.
 HELD: The act of mowing his grass is a
voluntary act, so he is liable. It is done
ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS
• Interference
– Must be direct.
 CASE: GREGORY V. PIPER
 FACTS: Rubbish placed near plaintiff’s land
rolled onto plaintiff’s land upon
drying.
 HELD: Defendant liable because the
trespass is a foreseeable result from
the defendant’s act.
POSSESSION
• Varies according to nature of
property.
• No consistent theory of possession.
• Example: A person staying in a hotel
room does not own the room.
• Example: A person who has been
granted to grow crops in someone
else’s land has enough possession
to sue for trespass.
– CASE: MONSANTO V. TILLY
TRESPASS BY RELATION –
IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO
POSSESSION
• Signifies the lawful right to retain
possession when someone has it.
• Signifies the lawful right to acquire
possession when one has not.
• When someone is entitled an
immediate right to possession, when
he enters land and acquire
possession, he is in possession.
• He can sue for trespass when he’s out
of possession.
• Claim for damages: Mesne profit
INTERFERENCE
• Interference to land is sufficient to amount to
trespass.
• Ways of interference
– Unauthorized walking on someone’s land
– Throwing something on someone’s land
– Discharging water into the flowing watercourse
– Letting your cattle stray from your land
• Trespasser
– A person extend permission to enter another’s
land
– A person remains in your land after it expires
• Trespass to person
– Injury must be direct & immediate
– Not a trespass if damage is indirect
– But there’s a remedy for nuisance
• Example: A plant tree on B’s land – Trespass
TRESPASS TO HIGHWAY
• Not a trespass if someone use highway
to travel from one place to another.
• Rights of a highway user is confined to
use of passage.
CASE: DPP V. JONES

FACTS: There was an assembly on

highway.
HELD: By majority of HOL that it is not a

trespass to hold a peaceful assembly on


highway, so long as it is reasonable and
doesn’t cause any obstruction.
TRESPASS TO SUBSOIL
• Trespass to subsoil is just as much a
trespass as trespass to surface of
land.
• Surface and soil may be owned by
different people.
• Example:
– A possess surface and B possess land.
– If I walk on land – Trespass to A
– If I dig vertical hole from surface –
Trespass to A & B
– If I dig tunnel from my area to B –
TRESPASS TO AIRSPACE
• Classic view
CASE: PICKERING V. RUDD

HELD: Invasion of airspace above

someone’s land is not a trespass


unless there’s actual contact with the
land.
• Modern view
– Classic view is incorrect.
– If a signboard erected on defendant’s
land projects onto plaintiff’s land, it
is a trespass.
CONTINUING TRESPASS
• Definition: Failure to remove object
unlawfully placed on plaintiff’s land.
CASE: KONSKIER V. GOODMAN

FACT: Contractor fail to remove rubbish after

completion of work. He dump it on plaintiff’s


property and left it there after his license
expires.
HELD: There was a continuing trespass

through negligence.
• But it’s not a trespass if defendant merely
omit to restore the same condition.
– Example: Defendant fail to fill pit. He’s liable
for trespass for digging, but not liable for
continuing trespass in allowing it to be
there. But he’s liable for negligence if
TRESPASS AB INITIO
• You become a trespasser ab initio if you
abuse your authority as justified by law.
• Your act is unlawful from the very beginning.
• Doctrine only applies if the authority is of
the law and if the act is positive, not a
mere omission.
CASE: CINNAMOND V. BRITISH AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
FACT: 6 taxi drivers were prosecuted by the

airport authority for touting passengers and


loitering at airport.
HELD: Taxi drivers had abused their authority

given by law and they were trespassers


NEGLIGENCE (Duty of Care)
• INTRODUCTION
– Negligence: When someone who
owes you a duty of care failed to act
according to a reasonable standard
of care & this has caused you injury.
– Duty of care: If your actions are
reasonably likely to affect someone
else, then you owe them a DOC. You
have to act according to a
reasonable standard of care to
ensure that those people are not
harmed or injured as a result of the
things you do. If not then you have
NEIGHBOURHOOD TEST
• A test to discover the existence of DOC & to know if
defendant is liable for negligence/not.
• An objective test.
• Court will ask hypothetical question.
– “Would a reasonable man in the same circumstance
as defendant foresee that his act will affect the
plaintiff?”
– If NO- Plaintiff not a neighbour of defendant, no DOC
– If YES- Plaintiff neighbour of defendant, yes DOC
• Example: A run over B, and C (wife of B) suffer shock
at hospital. Eventho C is not at all close at the
accident, but she is deemed to be ‘close’ because C
is a person who a reasonable man foresee that
might be affected from A’s conduct.
• Don’t need to apply the test in all cases to determine
DOC cuz court have recognised the existence of
DOC.
 Example: A teacher owes DOC to a student.
• No DOC
CASE: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON
FACTS: May McAllister bought a ginger beer

drink bottle and entertained her friend, Ms.


Donoghue. When she refilled the glass, out
came decomposed remains of a snail.
Plaintiff suffered shock and was severely ill.
So she sued the manufacturer claiming that
he had a duty in his business to prevent the
snails from entering the bottle and to
carefully inspect the bottle before filling it
with ginger beer.
ISSUE: Whether defendant owe a DOC to

plaintiff?
HELD: Plaintiff is a neighbour to defendant.

Lord Atkin ruled that you are to love your


neighbour, you must not injure your
neighbour and you have to avoid a
reasonable foresee act that might injure
your neighbour.
CASE: HOME OFFICE V. DORSETT
YACHT
FACTS: 7 borstal trainers escape from

an island due to negligence from


borstal officers. The boys caused
damage to some yachts and the
owner of the yachts sue the Home
Office
ISSUE: Whether the H/O owe a DOC to

owner of yacht?
HELD: H/O was liable because they

owe a DOC to plaintiff.


CASE: PEABODY DONATION V. LINDSAY
PARKINSON
FACTS: Drainage system of a building

was defective. LA in charge of


overseeing the construction was found
to be aware of the fact that the
approved plans didn’t adhere to the
completed drainage system. So plaintiff
sue the LA claiming that they had
breached their duty by not ensuring
that approved plans were adhered to.
ISSUE: Whether the LA owe a DOC to
CASE: SATHU V. HAWTHORNDEN RUBBER
ESTATE
FACTS: Plaintiff’s cattle died while grazing

on defendant’s estate which was


sprayed with sodium arsenide earlier
on. Plaintiff claim defendant breached
his duty under the D V. S principle.
ISSUE: Whether defendant owe plaintiff

DOC?
HELD: Defendant does not owe DOC to

plaintiff and thus, is not liable. In order


for defendant to be liable under the D V.
S principle, it must be shown that he is
aware that plaintiff’s cattle is likely to
stray on his estate. Since it is not
reasonably foreseeable by the
CASE: SIVAKUMARAN a/l SELVARAJ V.
YU PAN
FACTS: Plaintiff’s husband was

seriously injured after a collision with


the defendant’s lorry. 9 months after,
he committed suicide. She sue the
defendant claiming it was their fault.
ISSUE: Whether the defendant owe

DOC to plaintiff?
HELD: Defendant doesn’t owe DOC to

plaintiff. The suicide was not


foreseeable and it wasn’t a normal
reaction to the accident. The claim is
dismissed with costs.
REVISED TEST
ANNS TEST
CASE: ANNS V MERTON LONDON BC

• FACTS: Plaintiff bought a house from a


developer in 1962. In 1970 cracks
appeared in the walls of the house and
the floor became uneven due to the
foundation of the house. The plaintiff sue
the builders and the local authority for
negligence & failure to properly inspect
the foundation of the house.
• ISSUE: Whether there is sufficient
neighbourhood relationship
between the alleged and the
person who suffered loss.
• HELD: Defendant is liable. Too
CURRENT TEST
CAPARO TEST
CASE: CAPARO IND. V. DICKMAN

• Claimant has to show 3 things for a DOC


to exist.
1.Foresight
– Is it reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff
would be injured (foreseeability of
damage)
2.Proximity
– Is there sufficient proximity between
parties?
3.Fairness
– Is it fair, just & reasonable to impose
NEGLIGENCE (Breach of
DOC)
Breach: When defendant does

something below his minimum


standard of care.

Negligence: The omission to do


something which a reasonable would


do OR doing something which a
reasonable man wouldn’t do.

REASONABLE MAN TEST
• Test to show that the defendant owed
a DOC & that he breached it.
• “Would a reasonable man in the
same circumstance as defendant
have acted as the defendant has
done?”

LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE
• A reasonable man:
1.Is not expected to be perfect.
2.Is a person of normal intelligence.
3.Deemed to possess a particular
knowledge about a situation.
4.Does not take into account
defendant’s personal
characteristics.
5.Up to judge to determine course of
action that would be taken by a
reasonable man & what should
have been foreseen by defendant.
3 Issues: Duty, breach & damage
CASE: GLASGOW V. MUIR

FACTS: Defendant spilled some hot tea

on children.
ISSUE: Whether the defendant should

have foreseen the injury would occur


when he brought the container through
the shop’s corridors?
HELD: A reasonable man wouldn’t have

foreseen such accident in the


circumstance.
PROFESSIONAL DEFENDANT
• Bankers, doctors, accountants,
lawyers architects, engineers are
considered as professionals.
• They are bound to exercise the care
and skill of ordinary competent
practitioners in that professions.
• The standard of care required of
them is that of a reasonable
professional.
• Their standard of care is higher than
that ordinary man on the street.

CASE: PHILIPS V. WHITELEY
FACTS: A jeweller employed a man to pierce

Mrs. Philips. 2 weeks later she developed an


infection that caused a swelling on her neck
which requires surgery.
ISSUE: Whether the defendant who pierced

her ear have to show the care of a


reasonable surgeon/ reasonable jeweller?
HELD: A jeweller is not bound to take same

precautions as a surgeon. Defendant had


taken all reasonable precaution. Plaintiff
was unable to prove that the jeweller has
been negligent, so defendant was not liable.
CASE: BOLAM V. FRIERN HOSPITAL
MANAGEMENT
FACTS: Doctor treating plaintiff had

given ECT (electro-convulsive-


therapy). Plaintiff claimed damages
alleging that defendant were
negligent.
ISSUE: Whether the doctor were

negligent?
HELD: Doctor not guilty of negligence

as he has acted according to

You might also like