 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(June 2016) |
Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] EWCA Civ 7, [1981] QB 625 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a Court of Appeal decision on negligence and the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage, especially where the damage has been caused by third parties not the defendant him or herself.
The plaintiff Mrs Lamb, who owned a house off Hamstead Heath in London, had let this property to a tenant and then travelled to America. Whilst away, the defendant Camden London Borough Council carried out building works nearby which included the digging of a trench. This caused a water main to burst, which in turn caused subsidence. The house became uninhabitable and the tenant moved out. Mrs Lamb returned from America for six weeks to prepare the house for repair work and one of the things she did was to put all of the furniture into storage. She then returned to America. However, the house was now invaded by squatters who caused some £30,000 worth of damage. Having finally evicted the squatters and carried out the repair work, Mrs Lamb sued the council, who admitted liability for nuisance. There was thus no issue with the Council paying for the subsidence damage on its own (£50,000). The point of law which arose was whether Mrs Lamb could recover from the council the £30,000 due to the squatters' damage.
Following Lord Reid's test in Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004, the official referee, Judge Edgar Fay, found that the squatters' damage was too remote and was not recoverable. Although it may have been "reasonably foreseeable", it was not, in Judge Fay's view, "likely".
Giving the lead judgment in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning held that Lord Reid had been wrong on the grounds, firstly, that the "very likely" test would stretch the liability of defendants too far and that it was a householder's duty to insure their property, secondly, that this test ran counter to the case of Stansbie v. Troman [1948] 2 K.B. 48, where damage was unlikely but reasonably foreseeable (and therefore recoverable), and thirdly, that this test ran counter to the Wagon Mound cases [1961] A.C. 388; [1967] 1 A.C. 617 by which a tortfeasor was liable for all damage that was reasonably foreseeable however unlikely.
Lord Denning went on to hold that, while duty of care, causation and foreseeability were all useful devices for limiting liability, ultimately it was a question of policy for the judges to decide. He cited cases on economic loss and nervous shock as illustrations of this policy-based approach.
He concluded his judgment by repeating his view that it was Mrs Lamb whose duty it was to protect herself from the squatters' damage via insurance.
Oliver LJ and Watkins LJ delivered concurring judgments.
Markesinis and Deakin note that a key difference between this case (where the plaintiff did not recover) and Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004 (where the plaintiff did recover) was the relationship between the defendant and the third party which ″may be as important as the nature of the intervening act″. [1] While the Home Office had been in control of the borstal boys in the Dorset case, Camden Borough Council had had no control whatsoever over the squatters. [1]
A defendant is only liable for the act of a third party where the third party intervention is a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence, but policy considerations and the relationship between the defendant and the third party may be taken into account.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd[1970] UKHL 2, [1970] AC 1004 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a duty of care. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions.
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:
In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, in order to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability will be imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.
In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.
In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance.
Page v Smith[1995] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords. It is part of the common law of England and Wales.
Letang v Cooper[1964] EWCA Civ 5 is an English Court of Appeal judgment, by which it was decided that negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead.
Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978] QB 791 is an English contract law case, concerning remoteness of damage. In it, the majority held that losses for breach of contract are recoverable if the type or kind of loss is a likely result of the breach of contract. Lord Denning MR, dissenting on the reasoning, held that a distinction should be drawn between losses for physical damage and economic losses.
C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos or The Heron II [1969] 1 AC 350 is an English contract law case, concerning remoteness of damage. The House of Lords held that the "remoteness" test, as a limit to liability, is, in contract, more restrictive than it is in tort.
Attia v British Gas Plc [1988] QB 304 is an English tort law case, establishing that nervous shock from witnessing the destruction of personal property may be actionable. Prior to this case, a duty of care for an individual's mental health had not been established in situations not involving personal injury or the witnessing of such an event. The Court of Appeal ruled that British Gas were liable for the subsequent shock and depression of Mrs Attia, following the near total destruction of her home and possessions.
Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".
Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 QB 373 is an English contract law and English tort law case concerning defective premises and the limits of contract damages. It was disapproved by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DC and is now bad law except in Canada and New Zealand.
The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. The principle is most frequently cited in common law jurisdictions, and in English tort law in particular.