This chapter first looks at the idea of there being a form of strict liability for the escape of things brought onto and kept on land, arising from the case of Rylands v Fletcher. It continues by looking at the concept of ‘adopting a nuisance’; that is, allowing a nuisance on land to continue or failing to remove a natural hazard on land that ought to have been removed or been attended to, for example in order to prevent a one-off escape. Cases in this area have led to the existence of a ‘measured duty of care’, seemingly bringing the land torts closer to negligence.
Chapter
This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]. The development of the rule has led to an increased overlap with ideas from nuisance and negligence.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
Celebrated for their conceptual clarity, titles in the Clarendon Law Series offer concise, accessible overviews of major fields of law and legal thought. This chapter discusses breach of duty. To establish breach of duty, it must be determined that there was some misbehaviour by the defendant himself. The chapter addresses the question of whether the defendant behaved reasonably. It considers factors such as foreseeability of harm objective standard, normal practice, utility of conduct, cost of prevention, conduct of others, and emergencies. It then turns to the identification of the breach.
Chapter
Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The first step in establishing a negligence claim is to prove that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. The claimant must then show that the defendant has been negligent, that is, has breached that duty. To determine negligence, one must therefore establish how the defendant ought to have behaved in the circumstances (that is, standard of care) and whether the defendant’s behaviour fell below the desired standard (that is, breach). The basic standard of care in negligence is objectively assessed: that of the reasonable man. The objective standard can at times appear to work particularly harshly against a defendant, as exemplified by the case Nettleship v Weston (1971). This chapter examines breach of duty and the standard of care, the proof of negligence, and the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. It also discusses the Compensation Act 2006 which addresses the problem of the so-called compensation culture.
