The Language of the Law of Tort

Read this information about the law of tort. The most important words are in the key vocabulary below. Decide if the statements that follow are true or false.

The law of tort deals with civil wrongs. A wrong is something that causes harm or damage to another person. The words ‘harm’ and ‘damage’ have the same meaning. A person who suffers harm or damage is hurt in some way. This hurt might be physical in nature, but it might be some other type of hurt, such as causing someone to lose money. This area of law is based on the following principle. In situations where I cause harm to another person, I may be liable to compensate him or her for that harm, even in situations when:

of someone else’s conduct. Conduct is a more formal word that means behaviour.

The law of tort says that I must not harm another person either because I choose to harm him or her, or because I was not careful enough. In other words, I am liable for any harm that I cause to another person either from having intention to cause harm, or from negligence.

How is this area of law different from criminal law or contract law? The answer to this question is that there is a lot of overlap between the law of tort, contract law and criminal law. Overlap means that these areas of law include some things that are the same. However, an important difference between the law of tort and criminal law is that the main purpose of the law of tort is to compensate people who suffer harm and not to punish the people who caused this harm. An important difference between the law of tort and contract law is that the law of tort makes us liable to people with whom we have no previous relationship.

• I do not have a contract with that person and • I did not commit a criminal act against that person.

Let’s say that I am shopping in a large supermarket and an employee of the supermarket washed the floor five minutes ago. The floor is not completely dry. I do not know this. There is no sign to warn me that the floor is wet. I slip on the floor and hurt my back. I have to go to hospital and I cannot go to work for a month. This is a situation where I need to make a claim based on the principles of the law of tort. I am hurt physically and I have perhaps lost money, all because a The law of tort aims to compensate people for different types of harm and not just physical harm.

b I must have a contract with someone to make a claim against that person under the law of tort.

c I can only make a claim against someone under the law of tort if that person hurt me intentionally.

d The main purpose of the law of tort is to punish people who cause harm to others.

e I can be liable for my actions under the law of tort to someone who was a complete stranger to me before my conduct hurt that person.

Help desk

What do these words mean?

a principle of law — an established idea that is used as the basis for a particular area of law.

to slip — to fall because of stepping in something that is wet or icy.

Use the correct words from the key vocabulary in Exercise 1 to complete the following sentences.

a The main idea of the law of tort is not to punish people who do something wrong but tocompensatepeople who suffer because of someone else’s conduct.

b I amliablefor the harm that I cause to other people, which means that I have legal responsibility for causing that harm.

c In situations when I deliberately harm another person, I haveintentionto harm that person.

d In situations when I harm another person because I was not careful enough, the law says that the person can make a claim against me based upon mynegligence.

e The word ‘ ’ means the same as the word ‘harm’. The word ‘damages’, however, is not the plural of this word. Damages means financial compensation for harm or damage suffered.

Read this short text that gives you more information about the law of tort. Answer the questions that follow using a full sentence.

Conduct that causes harm to another person is referred to as a tort. We can describe a person’s conduct by saying that he or she is guilty of a civil wrong. We can also say that he or she has committed a tort. Several different types of tort exist in English law. Lawyers refer to the different types of tort as categories of tort or as the heads of tort. If someone harms me I can bring an action in tort. This means that I can sue that person on the grounds that I have suffered harm. If I am successful in this action, I will receive a remedy from him or her. A remedy is something that compensates me for my loss or that stops the harm from happening again. The usual remedy for a tort is damages. The person who is guilty of harming another person is referred to as a tortfeasor.

a What is a tort?

Answer: b What are the heads of tort?

Answer: c What does to ‘bring an action in tort’ mean?

Answer: d What is a remedy?

Answer: e What is the usual remedy for a tort?

Answer: f What name do lawyers give to the person who commits a tort?

Answer:

Read this information about the different types of tort that exist in English law. In each case, decide which is the correct preposition from the two possibilities. Write your answers in the spaces below.

There are several heads (*) of/to tort in English law.

We will look at the nature of these torts in Exercises 3 and 4 below. To ‘trespass’ is a general word that means to interfere (a) to/with something or someone, or to do something that causes harm.

The most important heads are:

If I want to bring an action (b) against/to a tortfeasor, that person’s conduct must usually fit (c) on/into one of the heads. However, some areas of tort are constantly developing. As society changes, the conduct that we regard (d) to/as unacceptable or harmful changes too.

Lawyers usually divide the heads (e) into/to two categories. These are torts that cause harm to people and torts that cause harm to land. Answers Example (*) of abcde

Read Exercise 1 again and answer the following questions using a full sentence.

a What does the verb to ‘trespass’ mean?

Answer: b What are the two types of trespass?

Answer: c Does the law of tort always stay exactly the same?

Answer: d What two categories do lawyers usually divide the heads of tort into?

Answer:

Read this information about the heads of tort that involve causing harm to people. The most important words are in the key vocabulary below. Complete the sentences that follow with the correct word from the key vocabulary.

There are three main torts that cause harm to people.

more negative way about that person. Defamation comes in two forms. The tort of libel is publishing the statement in a permanent form, for example, writing it in a book. The tort of slander refers to a statement in a form that is not permanent, for example, saying something in ordinary conversation. • Negligence occurs when you cause harm to

someone in a physical way. To make someone afraid that I will physically hurt them is the tort of assault. To actually hurt someone in a physical way is the tort of battery. To keep someone in a certain place without that person’s permission is the tort of false imprisonment. All of these torts are known as trespass to the person. • Defamation occurs when someone makes a another person because you were not careful enough. The law of tort says that in situations where you can anticipate that your conduct is likely to cause harm to another person then you have a duty to be careful. Lawyers refer to this duty as the duty of care. Negligence is the most common ground for claimants bringing an action in tort.

negative statement about another person which harms that person’s reputation. In other words, it means saying or writing something negative about someone, so that other people think in a a Julia runs a cafe in the town centre. Last week one of Julia’s customers burnt his hand when he touched a very hot plate. Julia did not warn the customer that the plate was hot. He claims that Julia was not careful enough and that he will sue Julia on the grounds of.

b Julia’s solicitor explained to her that as the owner of a cafe she has aduty of careto all of her customers. This means that she has a duty to make sure that her customers do not suffer any harm in her cafe.

c Mary was shopping in a large department store last week. A shop assistant says that she saw Mary take a necklace from the shop without paying. The manager of the shop kept Mary in an office for 45 minutes until the police arrived. The manager did not allow Mary to leave. The police discovered that Mary paid for the necklace. Mary sued the store on the grounds offalse imprisonment.

d Gary was playing football on Saturday. Gary shouted at his friend named Bill on the other football team. He shouted, ‘I am going to kill you!’ This is not the tort ofassault, as Bill did not really believe that Gary intended to cause him physical harm in this situation.

e Last year Paul was successful when he sued the police on the grounds ofbattery. Paul was taking part in a political demonstration when a policeman kicked him and pushed him for no reason.

f The head of tort that includes false imprisonment, assault and battery istrespass to the person.

g The head of tort that includes libel and slander isdefamation.

h David Boyle was at a party last night. David could not find his wallet, which contained £200. David accused George Lee of stealing his wallet. David said that George was ‘a typical thief’, and everyone at the party heard this. David later found his wallet, which he had left at home. George might sue David on the grounds ofslander.

i The actress Crystal Benn is suing a major newspaper on the grounds oflibel. The newspaper published a story that said Crystal takes illegal drugs and the story was not true.

Read this information about torts that cause harm to land. Fill the gaps in the text with the correct words from the box below.

There are two main torts that cause harm to land.

• Trespass to land means to go onto someone’s land without that person’s (a). This might mean (b)on the land or it might mean staying there permanently. Trespass to land also includes placing (c)on another person’s land without that person’s permission. • Nuisance means to interfere with a person’s enjoyment of his or her own land. This means that every individual has a right to (d)being in his or her own home or on his or her own land without anyone spoiling that experience. (e)who might not be successful in an action for trespass to land often use this tort as a basis for legal action. Let’s say I have some beautiful trees in my garden. Near my house is a small (f)involved in a manufacturing activity that uses strong chemicals. These chemicals smell very bad, but in addition to this, the fumes from the chemicals kill the trees in my garden. The factory owner has not (g)the tort of trespass to land. However, his conduct might give me the right to take action against him on the (h)of nuisance.

Read this information about the duty of care in the tort of negligence. The most important words are in the key vocabulary below. Complete the sentences that follow by matching the first half of each sentence with the correct ending.

omissions. Omissions are the things that I do not do. For example, when doctors give patients medicine to treat an illness, and that medicine is dangerous if people drink alcohol at the same time, the doctors must warn their patients. If the doctors do not warn the patients, then the doctors omit to tell the patients something important and that omission can cause harm to the patients. Both statute and the common law contain rules about the situations in which people are liable for their acts and their omissions.

In the UK and the USA most cases in tort are based upon the tort of negligence. In order to bring a successful claim against someone for negligence, the claimant must prove that the defendant was in breach of his or her duty of care. The duty of care is the duty to make sure that my conduct does not harm anyone.

However, the law is a little more complicated than this. The law of tort says, for example, that I am liable for

Do I have a duty of care to everyone under all circumstances? The answer to this is ‘no’. It is an established common law principle that I am only liable in certain situations. The main limit upon my liability to others is that the harm that I cause to another person must be ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Foreseeable means that the results of my conduct are predictable. For example, a gas company is doing some work In other words, I can be liable for harming another person because of my actions and I can also be liable because I fail to do something that a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. A lawyer will say that I am liable for my acts and also for my continued not subjective. It does not really matter what the defendant says that he or she was thinking at the time of the harmful conduct. The common law provides many principles that come from hundreds of cases about what is foreseeable and what is not foreseeable All of these factors must be considered when we ask the question ‘Is the defendant in breach of the duty of care?’

in the street. The men doing the work dig a deep hole. The men then go home at the end of the day. They do not put a sign anywhere to warn people that the hole is there and they do not provide a light. A man falls into the hole at night-time and breaks his leg. Was the result of the gas company’s omission reasonably foreseeable? The answer to this is ‘yes’. A reasonable person can anticipate the results of conduct such as this. How do we know if something is reasonably foreseeable? The test is objective and

not to do that particular thing. (1) not being careful enough. It is similar in meaning to ‘carelessness’. (5)

predictable. Something that I anticipate might the duty not to harm other people. However, happen as a result of my conduct. (2)

this duty is limited depending upon the situation in which the harm is caused. (6)

things that I actively do. (3) not influenced by your own feelings when you have to decide something. (7)

influenced by your own, personal feelings and things that I do not do. (8)

opinions when you have to decide something. (4)

Read the information in Exercise 1 again and decide if the following statements are true or false.

a Negligence is the tort that most legal action under the law of tort is based upon. b I am not liable for omissions under the law of tort. c All of the rules about liability under the law of tort come from the common law. d I do not owe a duty of care to everyone under all circumstances. e A defendant can always escape liability by saying that he did not personally foresee the harm that the claimant suffered.

Complete the following sentences with the correct prepositions.

a In the UK the majority of cases are basedupon/onthe tort of negligence.

b I am bringing a claim against my doctorfornegligence.

c An omission is a failure to do what a reasonable person would dounderthe same circumstances.

d I am only liable for breaching my duty of care to peopleincertain situations.

e The test to decide if something is reasonably foreseeable or not is an objective test, which means it does not matter what the defendant was thinkingatthe time when he or she caused the harm.

Read this information about some of the general principles of the tort of negligence. The most important words are in the key vocabulary below. Match the questions that follow this information with the answers that are provided.

The rules in the law of tort concerning negligence aim to compensate anyone who suffers harm. However, these rules have another purpose. They aim to act as a deterrent against negligent conduct. A deterrent is something that persuades a person not to behave in a particular way. For example, the idea of prison may act as a deterrent to a person who considers committing a criminal act. The principles of the tort of negligence are designed to act as a deterrent against negligent conduct. Negligent conduct is behaviour that might lead to harm.

to receive compensation or damages. Lawyers do not say ‘entitled to a redress’.

As we already know, a court first of all considers whether or not the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant. If there is no duty of care, then there is no claim. Then the court considers whether or not that duty of care was breached. If there was a breach, was the harm that the claimant suffered reasonably foreseeable? If the harm was not reasonably foreseeable then a lawyer will describe it as remote damage. The claimant is not usually entitled to redress for remote damage.

However, when a person is guilty of negligent conduct then it may be necessary to make a claim against that person. A court will look at the evidence and decide if the claimant is entitled to redress. The verb ‘to redress’ means to correct something that is unfair, usually by putting the claimant back in the position that he or she was in before the negligent conduct happened. The noun ‘redress’ has a very similar meaning to compensation. Redress usually takes the form of damages. Lawyers often talk about being ‘entitled to redress’. This means being entitled Some torts require proof of damage. In other words, the claimant must prove that the defendant’s conduct caused harm. However, some torts, such as libel, are actionable per se. If conduct is actionable per se, it means that the claimant does not need to provide proof of damage. The phrase ‘per se’ is Latin. In English, per se means ‘by itself’. The fact that the defendant committed the tort is enough for the claimant to be entitled to redress.

a What is a deterrent? d What is remote damage?

b What is negligent conduct? e What is proof of damage?

c What does redress mean? f What does it mean if something is actionable per se?

It means the same as compensation. (1) It is something that is designed to make people not do a particular thing or not behave in a particular way. (4)

It means that the claimant can make a claim for It is careless behaviour that is likely to cause the thing that happened without any evidence of actual harm. (2)

harm to another person. (5)

It is evidence that the claimant actually suffered It is damage that the defendant could not real harm, such as physical harm or loss of money. (3)

reasonably foresee. (6)

Read this information about a famous case from the law of tort in England. Answer the questions that follow using a full sentence.

The ‘McLibel’ case to tell the public about this was to give out leaflets containing information about the problem. In 1990, Helen and David stood outside several McDonald’s restaurants in London. They gave leaflets to people who were in the area. The title of the leaflets was ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they didn’t want you to know’.

On 15 February 2005, the longest case in English legal history came to an end. The case lasted for an amazing nine years and six months, the longest case in either criminal or civil legal history. There were 313 days of legal argument in court and 20,000 pages of court transcripts, which are the documents that record what happened in court. 130 witnesses gave oral evidence to the court. This case was based upon the law of tort.

The problem was that the leaflets contained some very controversial claims. For example, the leaflet said that McDonald’s was partly to blame for the destruction of the rainforests. It also claimed that McDonald’s’ food was unhealthy and eating too much of this food could give people health problems later in life.

The case was famous all over the world because of the nickname that people gave to it. This nickname was ‘the McLibel case’. The claimant in the McLibel case was, of course, McDonald’s, the chain of fast food restaurants. The case was so famous that the word ‘McLibel’ now appears in some respected English dictionaries.

In 1990 McDonald’s issued a claim against Helen and David on the grounds of libel. The company did not need proof of damage, as libel is actionable per se. The libel trial started in 1994. There was no judgment until three years later. Helen and David were found to be guilty of libel. In 1999 Helen and David appealed, but again they were ordered to pay damages to McDonald’s.

The facts of the case are as follows. The defendants in this case, Helen Steel and David Morris, belonged to a group of people who were worried about the environment and about the way that certain large corporations were behaving in relation to the environment. The group decided that the best way Helen and David refused to pay the damages. They decided instead to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Two barristers from England represented Helen and David in Strasbourg. The Strasbourg court made a decision that changed English law. The court decided that the English courts followed the correct procedure but that, nevertheless, the trial in England was unfair. This was mainly because Helen and David were poor compared to a big corporation such as McDonald’s, which meant that they could not pay for an expensive legal team. As a result of this, Helen and David’s defence was not so well prepared. The court also ruled that Helen and David’s right to free expression was violated.

The court awarded Helen and David damages of nearly £47,000.

A FAMOUS CASE IN ENGLISH LAW

Read this information about a famous case from the law of tort in England. Answer the questions that follow using a full sentence.

The ‘McLibel’ case a How long did the ‘McLibel’ case last?

Answer: b Who was the claimant in this case?

Answer: c Who were the two defendants in this case?

Answer: d What global issue were Helen and David worried about?

Answer: e How did Helen and David tell the public about their worries?

Answer: f What claim did Helen and David make concerning McDonald’s and the environment?

Answer: g Why did McDonald’s not need proof of damage?

Answer: h What was the decision of the court of first instance?

Answer: i Why did the European Court decide that Helen and David’s defence was not so well prepared as McDonald’s’ claim?

Answer: j What other ruling did the European Court of Human Rights give in this case?

Answer:

Here is a conversation between a lawyer and his client. The conversation is mixed up. Put the conversation in the correct order. Write your answers in the boxes numbered 2-9 below. There is an example at the beginning (*), which is the start of the conversation.

(*) Good morning Mr Decker. Thank you for coming to see me today. I understand that you have a complaint about a newspaper story concerning you and your family published on 5 September.

a That’s good news. I’m glad that I’m entitled to do something about this. And I’m certainly sure that this story damaged my reputation. But what does sue mean? Will the person who wrote this story go to prison?

b Is that the same as compensation?

c That would be the grounds if the untrue story about you was spoken and not written. In this situation however, we have good grounds for a defamation claim based upon libel.

d No. In England this type of thing is not a criminal matter. It is what we call a tort. It’s a type of civil wrong.

The punishment for the person who published the story will almost certainly be that he or she has to pay you damages.

e Really? I thought the grounds would be slander.

f Yes, that’s correct. The story was in a London newspaper on 5 September and again in a magazine called ‘Celebrity Gossip’ on 7 September. My wife is very upset about it. We’re trying to make sure that our children do not see the story, but it is difficult. Because I’m a professional footballer, my family are often in the newspapers and millions of people seem to be interested in our personal lives.

g Yes, it is. Both are a payment of money that the court considers will compensate you for the harm that the story did to your reputation. In this case the story was in written form, so we will sue them on the grounds of libel.

h I see. I understand that protecting your family is very important to you. As a professional sportsman, people are naturally interested in what you do. However, no one is allowed to say or write anything untrue about you that causes damage to your reputation. When this happens, you have the right to sue.

(1) (*) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Read the text below. There are ten words missing from the text. In the spaces below, write the missing words. The first letter of each word has been provided for you. There is an example at the beginning (*).

Read the following article and decide if the statements under it are true or false. Write your answers in the box below. There is an example at the beginning (*).

Colleen Corr is Irish. At the moment she lives in London. Colleen is a lawyer. She works in a bank. She works in the bank’s legal department as a case manager. The bank that Colleen works for has a contract with a large catering firm to provide a restaurant service for all members of bank staff. Anyone who works for the bank can either eat in the restaurant or buy a meal from the restaurant to take away and eat at his or her desk.

In December of last year, Colleen bought a salad in a plastic container from the restaurant and, because she was busy, she took the salad to her desk to eat while she continued to work. As she was eating, Colleen bit a hard object that was in the salad. The object was a small stone. Colleen broke a tooth as a result of biting the stone. Colleen had to visit the dentist and the bill was £630. Colleen complained to the catering company but the manager of the catering company says that it accepts no liability for Colleen’s injury. Colleen is now suing the catering company on the grounds of negligence. She is claiming the cost of visiting the dentist and an additional amount of £100 for her pain and suffering.

Example (*) Colleen Corr is not English.

1 Colleen Corr works as the general manager of a bank.

2 The bank has a contract with a catering company to provide food for bank employees.

3 Colleen was eating in the bank’s restaurant when she damaged her tooth.

4 Colleen is not suing her employer for negligence.

5 The total amount that Colleen is claiming is £730.