Tort law

Question no 01:

The intentional use of force against another person without their agreement is known as battery and is a core notion in tort law.[1] To advise Susan and Geeta on their claims for battery, we must analyze each incident in turn.

Susan’s claim for the battery:

Susan was the unfortunate victim of an event that happened inside The Zulu nightclub when Rob, in a fit of passion, tossed his glass of beer at the busy dance floor. Susan was seriously hurt when the glass struck her in the face. Susan must prove the following factors in order for her battery claim to be successful:[2]

1. Intentional Application of Force: The defendant, Rob, must have intentionally applied force to Susan.
2. Lack of Consent: The force must have been applied without Susan’s consent.

The intentional use of force against another person is referred to as battery under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988. In the UK, the battery is governed by this act.[3]

It is obvious that Rob’s actions qualify as battery. He purposefully tossed the glass toward the dance floor, where it hit Susan in the face and injured her. Rob is still accountable even though the nightclub is incredibly busy. Because Susan did not give her consent to being struck by the glass, Rob is responsible for violence.

Geeta’s claim for battery:

Unlike Susan, Geeta was not the intended recipient of Rob’s acts, hence her situation is distinct from Susan’s. Rob intended to punch Nick as he followed Geeta and Nick into the street. Rob’s strike, though, was off-target and landed on Geeta’s face. Even if Geeta wasn’t the intended victim, she might still be able to sue for battery. Establishing the following components is necessary:

1. Intentional Application of Force: The defendant, Rob, must have intentionally applied force.
2. Indirect Intention: The force was directed toward the intended target (Nick) but resulted in unintended contact with Geeta.

The principle of indirect intention was established in the case of Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner.[4] The court held that if a person intentionally initiates a chain of events and then realizes that the consequences will lead to harm, the intention is considered to be present.

Rob had the purpose of punching Nick, and by following Nick into the street, he started the sequence of events, according to the theory of indirect intention as applied to Geeta’s situation. Rob therefore indirectly hit Geeta because his punch hit her face rather than Nick’s.[5] Rob might therefore still be held accountable for battery on Geeta. Rob is subject to legitimate battery accusations from both Susan and Geeta. The direct use of force that occurred when Rob flung the glass toward the dance floor and accidentally hit Susan in the face is the basis of her claim. Rob’s punch intended for Nick accidentally impacted Geeta, supporting her contention that it was done in violation of the law of indirect purpose. They can file a lawsuit against Rob to recover damages for their injuries and other losses brought on by his acts.

1b). 

Occupier’s Liability, which governs the duty of care due by property owners to visitors, is a key area of tort law. We must evaluate the situation in light of the concepts of occupier’s liability and pertinent statutes in order to advise Lloyd on his claim for the harm and damages he sustained as a result of the falling fan at the Snack Shack.

Occupier’s Liability Act 1957[6] and Occupier’s Liability Act 1984[7] are the key statutes governing this area of law. While the 1984 Act provides protection to trespassers, the 1957 Act deals with authorized guests. Lloyd was a legitimate tourist, hence the 1957 Act will apply in this situation.

The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 imposes a duty of care on occupiers towards lawful visitors. To establish liability, Lloyd needs to demonstrate the following:

1. Occupier’s Duty: The Snack Shack, as the occupier, owes a duty of care towards Lloyd as a lawful visitor.
2. Breach of Duty: The Snack Shack breached its duty of care towards Lloyd.
3. Causation: The breach of duty caused Lloyd’s injuries and losses.
4. Foreseeability: The injury and damages were foreseeable as a result of the breach.[8]

To install the fan, The Snack Shack employed Thomas from Electric Interiors Limited. Thomas is an independent contractor in this situation, and the Snack Shack may rely on the “independent contractor defense.” However, in order for this defense to be effective, the Snack Shack must demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care in choosing and hiring Thomas and that he was qualified to complete the task[9]. It is claimed that no one from the Snack Shack reviewed Thomas’ work or inquired about his necessary credentials in this instance. This lack of thoroughness may undermine the independent contractor defense since it suggests that the Snack Shack did not use reasonable care in the selecting process.

Regarding the Snack Shack’s internal sign disclaiming responsibility for personal injury, such signs are not always definitive in establishing responsibility. They may be taken into consideration, but they do not excuse the occupant from their responsibility under the law. The Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977’s reasonableness standards and whether or not they were brought to the visitor’s attention are two considerations that determine whether or not such disclaimers are valid.[10] Lloyd has a legitimate claim for personal injury and property damage against the Snack Shack since the falling fan caused a serious head injury and caused damage to his cellphone. A violation of the duty of care could be proven by the Snack Shack’s negligence in failing to check the independent contractor’s work and in failing to safeguard the safety of the premises. Lloyd needs to show that the Snack Shack’s negligence caused the harm and damages in order for his claim to be successful.[11] He should also demonstrate that the harms and losses were predictable results of the breach. Therefore, Lloyd has a strong case for Occupier’s Liability against the Snack Shack for the harm and damages he had as a result of the falling fan. As part of its obligation to care for lawful guests like Lloyd, the Snack Shack must take reasonable precautions to keep the area secure. Their failure to use reasonable diligence and neglect in checking the independent contractor’s work may support Lloyd’s claim.

1c).

Exposure to asbestos is a major risk factor for the deadly disease mesothelioma. Since Lloyd worked for four distinct employers throughout the course of his career, his diagnosis of mesothelioma has been connected to prior asbestos exposure. However, given the length of time that has elapsed and the numerous exposures, the question of causation is complicated.[12] We must examine the tort law idea of causation with regard to mesothelioma cases in order to advise Lloyd on his mesothelioma claim.

Causation in Mesothelioma Cases:

In personal injury cases like mesothelioma, proving causation is essential because it shows how the defendant’s acts contributed to the claimant’s pain. The typical method for determining causation in mesothelioma cases incorporates two crucial components:[13]

1. “But For” Test: This test determines whether “but for” the defendant’s actions, the claimant’s harm would not have occurred.
2. Material Contribution: In some cases, the defendant’s actions may not be the sole cause of the harm, but if they materially contributed to it, they can still be held liable.

[1] Nancy J Moore, “Intent and Consent in the Tort of Battery: Confusion and Controversy” [2012] Journal of Tort Law <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2008843>

[2] Gardner J, “Obligations and Outcomes in the Law of Torts,” Hart Publishing eBooks (2014) <https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472562388.ch-006>

[3] Criminal Justice Act 1988, c. 33, s. 39.

[4] Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1968] 3 All ER 442.

[5] Sugarman SD, “Restating the Tort of Battery” (2018) 10 Journal of Tort Law 197 <https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2017-0020>

[6] Occupier’s Liability Act 1957, c. 31.

[7] Occupier’s Liability Act 1984, c. 3.

[8] “Occupiers Liability” (1999) 17 Property Management <https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1999.11317bab.003>

[9] Haseldine v. Daw & Son Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343.

[10] Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, c. 50.

[11] Caine CP and Thomas HR, “Negligent Tort Liability of the Design Professional” (2013) 5 Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 45 <https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000098>

[12] Noonan CW, “Environmental Asbestos Exposure and Risk of Mesothelioma” (2017) 5 Annals of Translational Medicine 234 <https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2017.03.74>

[13] Hylton KN, “Causation in Tort Law: A Reconsideration,” Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks (2013) <https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781006177.00012>