登陆注册
7676100000023

第23章 Tort Law 侵权法(4)

English Tort Law

English tort law concerns civil wrongs, as distinguished from criminal wrongs, in the law of England and Wales. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the law on the wrongdoers in court—in a criminal case. A tort is not enforced by the police, and it is a civil action taken by one citizen against another, and tried in a court in front of a judge ( only rarely, in certain cases of defamation, with a jury) . Tort derives from Middle English for“injury”, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from Latin, neuter of tortus“twisted”, from past participle of torquēre.

Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to the Continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, providing a wide scope of protection, especially since Donoghue vs. Stevenson. For liability under negligence a duty of care must be established owed to a group of persons of which the victim is one, a nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled towards. But as Lord MacMillan said in the case,“the categories of negligence are never closed”.

Negligence

Negligence is a tort which targets a breach of duty by one person to another. The famous landmark case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson, in which Mrs. Donoghue, the claimant, consumed part of a drink containing a decomposed snail while in a public house in Paisley, Scotland. The snail was not visible, as the bottle of ginger beer in which it was contained was opaque. Neither her friend, who bought it for her, nor the shopkeeper who sold it was aware of its presence. Donoghue sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson for her consequent illness, using negligence as, not having purchased the drink herself,the little consumer protection legislation available in 1932 was inapplicable. The members of the House of Lords agreed that Mrs. Donoghue had a valid claim, but disagreed as to why such a claim should exist. Lord MacMillan, as above, thought this should be treated as a new product liability case. Lord Atkin argued that the law should recognize a unifying principle that we owe a duty of reasonable care to our neighbour. He quoted the Bible in support of his argument, specifically the general, biblical principle that“love thy neighbour”.

“The liability for negligence . . . is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay . . . The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer s question‘who is my neighbour?’receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”

Thus, in the world of law, he created the doctrine that we should not harm our neighbours. The elements of negligence are:

( 1) A duty of care;

( 2) Breach of that duty;

( 3) Breach causing harm in fact;

( 4) The harm must be not too remote a consequence of the breach.

Duty of care

The establishment of a duty of care is, like negligence itself, broken up into further elements, a three-step test ( or in some cases more) Donoghue vs. Stevenson laid the groundwork for subsequent developments, and from the words of Lord Atkin s speech, he can be seen to refer to firstly, the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm; secondly, the claimant and the defendant being in a relationship of proximity; and thirdly, and more loosely, it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant for his careless actions. This three step scheme however, did not crystallise until the case of Caparo Industries Plc vs. Dickman. In this somewhat complicated case, a company called Caparo took over another company, by buying up a majority of its shares. It did this because it sneakily obtained word from a company audit thatthe target was financially sound. The audit was prepared by a group of accountants ( Dickman) and was intended for shareholders, not outsiders. Once Caparo owned the company it found that the finances were in fact pretty shoddy, and so it sued the accountants for being negligent in its audit preparation. The House of Lords found against Caparo, and established the current three-fold test. Although it was“reasonably foreseeable”that outsiders might learn of the carelessly prepared information, it was not the case that Caparo and Dickman were in a relationship of“proximity”. This the court used as a term of art ( note, this is different from the American use of the word) , to say that it should not be the case that absolutely anyone hearing something said that was stupid and acted on it can sue. The court was reacting to its concern that to allow a claim here might open the floodgates of litigation. The third element, whether liability would be“fair, just and reasonable”was an extra hurdle added, as a catch all discretionary measure for the judiciary to block further claims.

General standard of care

In order not to breach a duty of care, a defendant must generally meet the standard of a“reasonable man”.

A reasonable person can be defined as“the man on the Clapham omnibus”as Greer L J explains in Hall vs. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club. Lord Steyn describes the term as“commuters on the London Underground”.

This is an objective standard, based on an average person. It does not require perfection, but takes into account that an average person does not foresee every risk. The average person is not assumed to be flawless, but ordinarily careful and prudent.

同类推荐
热门推荐
  • 无尽张狂

    无尽张狂

    为了她......哪怕举世皆敌,又如何?!
  • 倘若你是我的神明

    倘若你是我的神明

    夏日祭过后,无意间发现了一枚戒指,那枚戒指,它可以改变部分区域天气、气候、季节,但过度使用戒指的能力就会被戒指反噬。校园内,一个少女突然坠楼。那些饱受欺凌却闭口不言不去指认凶手的受害者,将永远活在被神明支配的黑暗牢笼之中。我的神明,请来救赎我。
  • 乱世枭雄起

    乱世枭雄起

    在这乱世,英雄辈出,各路大神,小鬼都使出浑身解数一番作为
  • 谢长流

    谢长流

    福如东海长流水,寿比南山不老松。这一句祝颂语,由庙堂传至民间。百姓们只知道说的是祝愿一个人福气如同东海海水浩瀚,长寿如同终南山不老的古松。却不知,这句话中的东海蓬莱岛长流宫,和终南山不老观,乃是一个国家一个王朝的福寿所在。
  • 重生之鹿晗我还是喜欢你

    重生之鹿晗我还是喜欢你

    前世的夏涵晗被她一生中最重要的两个人所背叛,她获得了一次重生的机会,她能否成功?我们拭目以待
  • 极品山贼劫天下

    极品山贼劫天下

    一不小心穿越了!唉!没办法!狗血事情年年有,只是今年特别多!既来之则安之吧!可当刘梦清醒以后才发现自己竟成了败军的将军,被身边仅有的二十几个溃兵抬着向大山里跑!老天呐!你让我穿了也就算了,这又何必呢?!进山就进山吧!好歹还可以当个山大王!杀杀人!放放火!倒也逍遥!然后发展发展势力呀!要挟要谢皇帝呀!统一统一中原什么的!没办法!谁让山贼是很有前途的职业呢?
  • 我不要忘记你

    我不要忘记你

    因为年少的契约,两人再次重逢。恢复记忆的李与商对应龙城做出放生之举。然而……
  • 快穿你是我的药

    快穿你是我的药

    女巫蓝茗的快穿之旅。视药如命的蓝茗穿越了,开始收集她的药,却碰上能够医治她心痛的人。
  • 天行

    天行

    号称“北辰骑神”的天才玩家以自创的“牧马冲锋流”战术击败了国服第一弓手北冥雪,被誉为天纵战榜第一骑士的他,却受到小人排挤,最终离开了效力已久的银狐俱乐部。是沉沦,还是再次崛起?恰逢其时,月恒集团第四款游戏“天行”正式上线,虚拟世界再起风云!
  • 时光逆流之上

    时光逆流之上

    出生在影城四大家族之一白家的江瑾洛,四岁时便跟随她的妈妈和哥哥离开了已有一个女儿和小三的百世光(江瑾洛生父),从此便开始了她大佬一般的人生。某大神:老婆~。大佬:滚。