Law And Fault

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

1. Go through 4 elements and link to fault.
2. Discuss that its strict liability.
3. Discuss defences.
4. Conclusion.

Question 2

Occupiers liability to lawful visitors

Answer 2

Discuss:
1. Reasonable occupier? More at fault for children and less for specialist visitors.
2. Defences - contributory negligence, warning signs, independent contractors.

Question 3

Fault and nuisance

Answer 3

Discuss:
- Negligence isn’t needed.
- Factors that indicate fault?
- Defences reflecting a lack of fault.

Question 4

Fault and vicarious liability

Answer 4

Discuss:
- Basic premise that employers aren’t really at fault for employees - strict liability.
However:
- Recruitment, training and appraisal.
- Justified as they have benefit of their work.

Question 5

Fault and occupiers liability to trespassers

Answer 5

1. Outline law
2. S1(3) - 3 conditions have to be met which does mean occupiers at fault to some extent.
3. What is the duty?
4. How is it breached? Causes
5. Defences
6. Damages
7. Negligence
8. Duty
9. Breach
10. Damage
11. Defences
12. Damages

Question 6

Add to temp: In tort law fault is….

Answer 6

• Reflected in the tort of neglected and OL by the fact D failed to reach he standard of the reasonably competent person/ occupier in that situation.
• E.g. James v White Lion - the hotel at fault as they hadn’t fit £7 latches to sash windows and the COA held that the reasonable O would have done hence hotel being at fault.

Question 7

Rylands v Fletcher and Nuisnace are….

Answer 7

• SL torts so in theory D doesnt need to be at fault as an unlawful intereference/ accumulation of a substances is enough.
• Over the years elements of fault have been introduced to these torts.
• Nuisance - factors governing whether interference was unlawful introduces fault e.g. malice and duration.
• Defences suggest there are ways D can prove they are less blameworthy e.g. planning permission if it changed the nature of locality.
• Rylands v Fletcher development of the fact the use of must be non-natural suggests blameworthiness or not as in Transco v Stockport.
• Defences available too such as Act of God, Nicholas v Marshland.

Question 8

The rule of vicarious liability is also….

Answer 8

• One of SL - can be held employer isn’t at fault as they aren’t aware of actions of individual employees e.g. Mohammad v Morrisons but they are still held liable for torts/ crimes.
• However it can be argued employees are at fault as they recruit and train employers and should have 360 degrees appraisal system so any areas for extra training required can be picked up on.
• E.g. If Morrisons had sufficient supervision of Mr Khan they would have picked up on unsavoury opinions/ attitudes.

Question 9

Damages in civil law….

Answer 9

Reflect fault at a lesser level because C is put back at the level they were at before the harm occurred unlike criminal law where you’re punished.