Civil Liability Flashcards
what are the torts?
- Negligence
- breach of statutory duty
- Trespass
- Nuisance
what is civil action?
civil action generally involves individuals with a claimant suing a defendant for a remedy or remedies - usually in the form of damages
Negligence in environmental law
waste producers have a duty of care in respect of the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of controlled waste
what can happen following a breach of statutory duty?
may result in a criminal prosecution by the enforcing authority
a breach of statuary duty by a defendant may give the claimant a cause of action in tort
what is Trespass?
there must be interference with a persons property rights without lawful excuse. The interference must be intentional or negligence and direct (not consequential)
Case: McDonald v Associated Fuels Ltd (1954)
what is nuisance?
a breach of a legal duty imposed by the law, or a civil wrong
a common law nuisance is one (apart from statute) violates the principles which the common law lays down for the protection of the public and of individuals in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights
nuisances in common law are private or public
statutory nuisance is covered under the EPA 1990 Part III
Nuisance is not actionable unless there is proof of damage
Duties Owed by Organisations and Occupiers of Land
Negligence - Donohuge v Stephenson (1932) - developed the neighbour principle
General Duties - Wilson and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1938) - developed the general duties of an= employer to take reasonable care of their employees from the risks of foreseeable injury, disease or death at work
Current Knowledge - Margereson and Hancock v J.W. Roberts Ltd (1996) - if an employer is aware of, or ought to be,. in the light of current knowledge ….they will be liable ……/
Foreseeability - a defendant is generally responsible for all damage that is a direct consequence of their act
Remoteness - compensation can only be obtained when it is accepted that the injury or damage is not too remote from the original wrong
what are some defences to civil actions?
- no duty owed
- no breach of duty
- the breach did not lead to damage
- lack of foreseeability
- remoteness of damage
- volenti non fit injuria
- necessity
- contributiory negligence
What are defences to Breach of Statutory Duty?
- there will bo no action available if the causes of action in tort do not apply
- if the statutory duty is not absolute, there will be a defence if the employer provided a safety precaution, but the claimant would not on the balance of probabilities have made use of it
- contributory negligence
what are the defence to Trespass?
- the action must prove directness, The interference with rights must be direct rather than consequential
- trespass must be intentional or negligence
- a casual link must be established between the directness of the act and the inevitability of the consequences
Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Southport Corporation (1956)
these defences could be applied to environmental action:
- licence
- rights of entry
what are the defences to Nuisance?
- prescription - if a same act has been occurring continuously for 20 years (only available to private nuisance)
- Activities Authorised by a Statutory Authority
- Act of God - operation of natural forces is unexpected and resultant damage is remote from the incident
- Act of Stranger
The Rule of Ryland v Fletcher Arising from Environmental Pollution
- established the principle of strict civil liability since it was not considered an adequate defence to say that all reasonable steps had been taken to prevent the escape from occurring
When is an action for a civil case excluded
usually 6 years from the polluting incident (Limitation Act 1980, Section 2)
What case details the damage of foreseeable type?
for the polluter to be liable, the damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable by the polluter
Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather pls
what case produced the principle of date of knowledge’
Margereson and Hancock v J.W.Roberts Ltd
the evidence demonstrated that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen a risk of some pulmonary injury in that the company should have known about the risk off asbestos exposure many years before the claimant was born