Week 1 - Tort Law cases

Snow covered steps

Issue:

• Plaintiff slipped on snowy slippery municipality stairs.

• Injured.

• These open-to-public steps are in a neglected state and unlit

Question: Is the municipality liable?

• Personal responsibility (to take care of oneself) vs. owner responsibility (to maintain stairs as it is foreseeable that they will be used)

Solution:

• Owner (municipality) has control of steps state and quality, and they are open to public.

• = Yes, municipality liable

Reasoning:

• Municipality does not HAVE to repair the steps as it costs money, but they could have covered it up so people did not use it

Lettuce leaf

Issue: Plaintiff fell in shop due to slipping on lettuce leaf

Question: Is shopkeeper liable?

Solution:

• Shop must prove leaf was there for short time only

• + customer has to take care (be careful) in veggie-fruit department because it was was also crowded

• + shop has to take into account that business can lead to things falling on floor, foreseeing that someone could floor so they should have taken precautions (ie. periodically clean it)

• = Shop is liable, but ⅓ reduction due to contributory negligence victim

L’Olympique v. Fuster

Issue: Fuster died in football match due to explosion started by hooligans. Family wanted compensation.

Question: Is the football club liable? ○ Sue club instead of hooligan because club has more money.

Solution: What level of care is required by football club?

• Organizer has to take adequate security measures.

• No inspection to prevent 33000 spectators from carrying objects that could cause injury

• + supporters of opposing teams are not seated from a safe distance of each other.

• = Football club is liable

Smith v. Littlewoods Organization

Issue: Vandals set fire on Littlewoods’ cinema, damaging neighbour Smith

Question: Is Littlewoods liable? Due to failure of taking preventative measure

Solution: No liability for pure omissions.

• They just happened to be owner of property.

• Special circumstance are required, where the defendant negligently permits or creates source of danger.

• = Littlewoods not liable

• He did not create the risk + it never happened before.

• No reason that this is foreseeable.

Donoghue v Stevenson

*Criteria for judge to determine whether or not there is a duty of care

Issue: Donoghue drinks ginger ale from friend, bottle has remains of decomposed snail. Donoghue gets sick, wants to sue.

Question: Who is to be held liable? She wanted to sue producer. Does Producer have duty of care?

Solution: Reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonable foresee that is likely to injure.

• = Foreseeability test

• Counter: In abstract, everything is foreseeable.

Osman v UK

Issue:

• Teacher, Paul, harassed student, Osman

• Paul spread rumors that Osman is gay

• + crashed his car into Osman’s school bus

• + his parent’s tires slashed + kills father + kills son of other teacher.

Question: Can they sue police force? (for not taking actions sooner)

Solution: UK Court argued police immunity so liability, BUT is a violation of article 6 ECHR.

Bubbins v UK

Issue:

• Melanie saw feet of a man run in her bf’s (Michael) flat, Melanie called out, no response. She calls police.

• Police shot intruder, who turned out to be drunk Michael himself, because they thought he had a gun pointed at them.

Question: Can police be held liable for Michael’s death? (for wrongful shooting)

Solution: No violation of Art 2 (police did not act negligently), because Police has immunity, but violation of Art 13 because English Law did not offer compensation for non-pecuniairy damages (no effective remedy in place).