Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury." (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, italics added.) In cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, "the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use." (Zaslow v. Kroenert, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 551, 176 P.2d 1, italics added; accord, Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610, 12 Cal.Rptr. 488, 361 P.2d 20.)
The question was that “who then in law is my neighbour? The answer was that anyone who is closely and directly affected by your act, to reasonably have them in contemplation as being affected when you are directed to a act. Duty of care This was brought to existence by Lord Bridge in Caparon Industries v Dickman (1990) in this case: The test in this case was that it must be clarified whether the loss was foreseeable i.e. if it could have been prevented as in case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) in the neighbour principle. If the loss was foreseeable, whether there was a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties should be
The CERCLA Windfall Lien: A Liability Trap for Unwary Purchasers of Contaminated Sites By Larry Schnapf The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (the “2002 Brownfield Amendments”) added a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (“BFPP”) defense to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) . The BFPP defense allows purchaser to knowingly take title to contaminated property provided they satisfy certain criteria but comes with an important hitch. Namely, EPA may perfect a “windfall lien” on property owned by a BFPP in certain circumstances to recover cleanup costs. This article will discuss the scope of this lien, the recent EPA guidance that discusses when the
The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule. Everyone has a general duty to carry out a reasonable care toward other people and their property. The second element comes into play if a person acts unreasonably. Their unreasonable action is then considered a breach of duty of care of element one (duty).For the law to determine whether a person's conduct is reasonable or not, the law has to ask: “Would a person of average intelligence and general regard for others have acted in the same way?” If the obvious answer is a no, then the person's behavior was unreasonable and thus, a
Law Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council shows that unsigned exclusion clauses need to be clearly defined to a reasonable person. Another case highlighting the need for exclusions to be clearly informed to the other party is the case of Causer v Browne. As for the case of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd the court held that the company providing defective product is liable for their negligence. If reasonably sufficient notice is given as to the existence of an exemption clause, then it is accepted by the courts that that clause becomes parts of the contract. The case that set this dictum, and which laid our the guidelines for testing the reasonableness and sufficiency of the notice
• Public nuisance - in contrast, is both a crime and a tort. It was defined by Romer LJ in Attorney-General v P.Y.A Quarries Ltd (1957) 2 QB 169: ‘any nuisance is “public” which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her Majesty’s subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as “the neighbourhood”; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case’. • Statutory nuisances are simply nuisances which operate by virtue of particular statutes. E.g Part iii of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is primarily concerned with matters of public health.
Discuss the extent to which the rules on causation and remoteness of damage are fair to both parties. Causation – is where you determine if the defendant has contributed to the damage remoteness – makes a link between the damage and the tort. Barnett v Chelsea – but for test negligence - Duty of care , breach of duty and damage. wagon mound established remoteness. Test for remoteness is foreseeability ( left oil, welders, ignited cotton waste ) smith v leechbrain – thin skull rule Fairchild v glenhaven – Fairchild exeption (two companys liable) smith v littlewoods – was there an intervening act?
An intentional tort is any deliberate interference with a legally recognized interest, such as the rights to bodily integrity, emotional tranquility, dominion over property, seclusion from public scrutiny, and freedom from confinement or deception. Under certain circumstances the law permits individuals to intentionally pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily result in harm to others. The harm that results from such conduct is said to be outweighed by more important interests. ("Intentional torts legal definition of Intentional torts," n.d.) When a person commits a direct or indirect act which is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another is liable if the act is done with the intention of bring about a harmful offensive contact or apprehension there of the other or a third person, the contact is not consented to by the other or the others consent thereto is produced by fraud or duress, and the contact is not otherwise privileged. ("Garratt v. Dailey – Case Brief Summary," n.d.) In the case of Garratt vs. Dailey, five-year-old Brian Dailey while visiting the house of Ruth Garratt pulled a chair out from under her just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip.
Introduction The problem question relates the legal principle concerning ‘Trespass to the Person’ the tort of trespass to the person protects the right to personal integrity and the Writ of trespass is that the act had to be direct and physical Scott v. Shepherd (1773). This area of trespass is broken down into three issues: Assault, battery and False imprisonment. In order to answer the problem question it would have to be ascertained as to which trespass has occurred and apply it to any relevant statue and case law where appropriate. Definition Trespass to the person is defined as a physical interference with his or her person. Explanation Trespass to the person takes three forms: assault, battery and false imprisonment and they carry the same characteristics as ‘Trespass’ in which they must be committed intentionally, cause direct harm and are actionable per se without proof of damage.
We will then, with specific reference to three key cases, look at the compensatory approach of damages and look at the key principles brought about by these cases and the current standing of the law, with the aid of cases and academic writing. In order to tackle this question, we must first define what a contract is. The term contract does not have a solid and/or rigid definition in English law; however, the English legal system, like many other legal systems, is reliant on the Latin “Pacta sunt servanda” – promises are made to be kept; contracts are made to be performed, when looking at the law of contract and contractual obligations. Hence, contract law is a branch of private law based on promises which are made by one party to another and the enforceability of these promises and it is by this assertion that the separation of contract law from that of the law of tort and the law of restitution rests to a large extent. In keeping a contract, it is said that the parties are executing a contract.