torts roadmap - amazon web services · torts roadmap (this is a mindmap to the cla and intentional...
TRANSCRIPT
Torts Roadmap
(This is a mindmap to the CLA and intentional Torts. This is what was referred to during the exam)
Duty of Care Breach
Damage and
Causation Defences ActLYLW\
Mental Harm
Negligence
Relationship of CLA and Common Law
1 You can argue on the same facts negligence and an intentional tort.
Intentional Tort (Battery) (Intentional act + intentional injury) CLA bot applicable (S3B)
Not possible
Both (Potentially Intentional Tort or CLA) -Intentional negligence (you can intentionally neglect a legal duty Williams v Milotin1)
(If its Vague, go both)
Negligence only
Intentional Not Intentional
Inte
ntio
nal I
njur
y N
o In
tent
iona
l Inj
ury
Criminals CLA 3B(1)(a)(ii) applies for criminals. If a criminal is trying to recover damages to a common law battery (or intentional tort) the CLA applies (Sect 52, 53, 54). (eg someone tries to break into your house and you beat them up)
Exception
Wilkinson v Downton (Practical joke exception) He intended the joke but didn’t intend the harm. Created a practical joke about someone dying. Court decided to impute a duty cause his action was so stupid. The only surviving action on the case.
Exception
Duty of Care A Owes a DOC to B to take reasonable care
Principle Proximity. Offered little value Reasonable Foreseeability. Too broad
Category Incrementalism. Gradual expansion of existing categories
Category exceptions (different rules for establishing a duty) x Commercial Premises –Thompson v Woolworths
(Contract) x Hotelier/Publican to Intoxicated Patron - Cole
(question of fact) x Pure Economic Loss-
o Misstatement – Apply Tepko, lever test o Actions – Caltex principle, counter
indeterminacy x Products Liability x Defective Structures x Professional opinions x Nervous Shock x Council and Public Authorities-done
Effect of CLA
Public & Road Authorities
x Lever Test, 4 criteria S42 x Hard to prove
Samaritans/Volunteers x Immunity
Starting Point 1. Established Category 2. Incrementalism 3. Caparo
Mental Harm x Self contained action in
CLA x S32, reasonable
foreseeability test x Apply S29
Different criteria to establish a duty, much
harder
Intentional Torts (Excluded from CLA S3B)
Battery Elements 1. Intentional Act – Cole v Turner + 2. Directly Causes Physical Interference - Rixon + 3. No Lawful Justification – Collins v Wilcock = Battery
Assault Elements 1. Intentional (or reckless) Act + 2. Reasonable Apprehension of imminent physical
interference (all in the mind of the victim) or the instillation of fear or fright- Barwick – The Queen v Philips – Police v Greaves
+ 3. No Lawful Justification – Collins = Assault
False Imprisonment 1. Intentional Act
+ 2. Directly causes total restraint and confines them
to a limited area – Balmain Ferry Co +
3. No Lawful justification – Symes v Melron =
False Imprisonment
Consent x Valid Consent – No fraud or coercion; Williams,
Papadimitropoulos x Consent in medical cases (Don’t confuse with CLA -
negligence). Dean v Phung (consent to one procedure only) x Right of Autonomy – Sane mind Hunter;Re JS x Mature Minors – Gillick Competancy; Marions Case x Sports – Rules of game McNamara
Self Defence x Defence of Person – Reasonable force
Fontin v Katapodis x Defence of Property – Reasonable x Effect of CLA x NOT Insanity!
Provocation
x No!
Necessity x Urgent situations of imminent peril x Not an excuse – Southwark London B Council x More than just convenience – Murray v McMurchy
Infants x Not a defence (baby breaking something)
Discipline x Parental control – Reasonable and Moderate force;
R v Terry
Illegality x No rights between themselves
regarding intentional torts x Also see CLA
CLA S54 If a criminal is subject to
an intentional tort the CLA applies 3B(1)(a)(ii)
Contents
Lecture 1: Introduction [Balkin and Davis (B&D) Ch 1-3] ............... 13
TOPICS ............................................................................................. 13
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 13
1. What is a tort? ................................................................................................. 13
2. What is the difference between a tort and a crime? ...................................... 13
3. What is the aim of the law of torts? ............................................................... 14
4. What systems are in place for the achievement of those aims? .................... 15
5. How may torts be classified? .......................................................................... 15
6. What is the difference between trespass and an action on the case (Negligence)? ......................................................................................................... 16
o Hutchins v Maughan [1947] VLR 131 ......................................................... 16
o Williams v Milotin (1957) 97 CLR 465 ......................................................... 17
Trespass .................................................................................................................. 18
o Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299 ............................................................ 18
o Platt v Nutt (1988) 12 NSWLR 231 .............................................................. 18
Types of Trespass ................................................................................................... 18
7. What is battery and what is assault? .............................................................. 18
x Battery. ............................................................................................................. 18
o Rixon v Star City Casino [2001] NSWCA 265 ............................................... 19
o Platt v Nutt (1988) 12 NSWLR 231 .............................................................. 19
o Scott v Shepherd. ........................................................................................ 19
o Hutchins and Maughan [1947] VLR 131 ..................................................... 19
o Southport v Esso Petroleum ....................................................................... 20
o Re F [1990] 2 AC 1 ....................................................................................... 20
o Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205 .............................................................. 20
x Assault. ............................................................................................................. 21
o Tuberville v Savage [1669] EWHC KB J25 ................................................... 21
o (Police v Greaves) ....................................................................................... 21
x Hall v Fonceca [1983] WAR 309 .................................................................. 22
x Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWLR 451 ................................................... 22
x Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 Crim R 11. .................................................... 22
x Burton v Davies [1953] St Rep. Qd 26 ......................................................... 22
x What is false imprisonment? ........................................................................... 22
o Bird v Jones ................................................................................................. 22
o Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 .......................................................... 22
o The Balmain New Ferry v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379. ............................. 22
o Symes v Melron .......................................................................................... 23
o Herd v Werdale Steel, Coal and Coke Co [1915] AC 67 .............................. 23
o Bahner v Marwest Hotels Co Ltd [1969] B.C.J No. 44 (S.C). ....................... 23
o Meering v Graham white Aviation Co Ltd (1920) 122 LT 44 ....................... 24
o Murray v Ministry of Defence..................................................................... 24
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 24
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 24
Lecture 2: Intentional torts [B&D Ch 4-5] ...................................... 25
TOPIC ............................................................................................... 25
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 25
Trespass to Land .............................................................................. 25
1. What is trespass to land? ................................................................................ 25
o Victoria Racing Co v Taylor. ........................................................................ 26
o Bathurst City Council v Saban ..................................................................... 26
� Greig v Greig ................................................................................................ 26
� Coles Smith v Smith and Ors ....................................................................... 26
o Bernstain of Leigh v Skyways and General Ltd. .......................................... 27
o Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco. ......................................................................... 27
Halliday v Neville. .............................................................................................. 27
� Plenty v Dillion. ............................................................................................ 28
2. What are the remedies for a trespass to land? .............................................. 28
Trespass to Property ........................................................................ 28
3. What torts protect goods? .............................................................................. 28
4. Who has the right of action in trespass to goods, conversion and detinue? . 28
� Parker v British Airways. ............................................................................. 29
Conversion ....................................................................................... 29
5. Acts of Conversion – What Acts constitute conversion? ................................ 29
o Fouldes v Willoughby .................................................................................. 29
Detinue ............................................................................................ 30
Damages for Conversion and Detinue .............................................. 30
Lecture 3: Intentional Torts Continued [B&D 3.21-3.23] ................ 31
TOPIC ............................................................................................... 31
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 31
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 31
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 31
Actions on the Case .......................................................................... 31
o Bird v Holbrook. .......................................................................................... 31
¾ Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57. ....................................................... 31
¾ Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316. .......................................................... 31
¾ Nationwide News v Naidu ......................................................................... 31
Elements for Action on the Case ............................................................................ 31
o Wainwright v Home Office. ........................................................................ 32
HCA issue with Wilkinson v Downton .................................................................... 32
o Magill v Magill ............................................................................................. 32
Onus of Proof ......................................................................................................... 32
o Hackshaw v Shaw ....................................................................................... 33
Impact of the Civil Liability Act ............................................................................... 33
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 33
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 33
Lecture 4: Defences to Intentional Torts [B&D CH 6] ..................... 34
TOPIC ............................................................................................... 34
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 34
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 34
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 34
Defences .......................................................................................... 34
Consent .................................................................................................................. 34
¾ R v Williams [1923] 1 KB 340 ..................................................................... 34
¾ Papadimitropoulos v R (1957) 98 CLR 249. ................................................ 34
o R v Linekar [1995] QB 250. ......................................................................... 34
¾ Dean v Phung [2012] NSWCA 223. ............................................................ 35
¾ Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 88 .. 35
¾ Re JS [2014] NSWSC 302. ........................................................................... 35
o Gillick v West Norfold and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112. 35
o Marion’s Case; Secretary Department of Health and Community Services v JWB (1992) 175 CLR 218 ................................................................................... 36
¾ X v The Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network [2013] NSWCA 320. ........... 36
¾ McNamara v Duncan (1979) 45 FLR 152.................................................... 36
Self defence ............................................................................................................ 37
¾ Fontin v Katapodis (1962) 108 CLR 177. .................................................... 37
Provocation ............................................................................................................ 38
x Downham Bellette & Ors ............................................................................ 38
o Lane v Holloway [1967] 3 WLR 1003 .......................................................... 39
o Murphy v Culhane [1977] QB 94 ................................................................ 39
Necessity ................................................................................................................ 39
x Southwark London B. Council v Williams CA 1971 ..................................... 39
o R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 2730 DC. .................................... 40
o Murray v McMurchy [1949] 2 DLR 442 (BC SC) .......................................... 40
Insanity ................................................................................................................... 40
o White v Pile (1951) ..................................................................................... 40
o Morriss v Marsden [1952] 1 All ER 925 ...................................................... 40
Infants .................................................................................................................... 40
o Hart v AG of Tasmania ................................................................................ 40
o Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256 ................................................................ 40
Discipline ................................................................................................................ 41
o R v Terry [1955] VR 114 .............................................................................. 41
Illegality .................................................................................................................. 41
o Hegarty v Shine L.R. 4 Ir. 288 (1878) .......................................................... 41
o Smith v Jenkins (1970) ................................................................................ 41
o Jackson v Harrison ...................................................................................... 41
o Gala v Preston ............................................................................................. 41
¾ New South Wales v Ibbet 2006 HCA 57 ..................................................... 42
¾ Houda v NSW [2005] .................................................................................. 42
¾ Zorom Enterprises v Zabow [2007] NSWCA 106 ....................................... 42
¾ NSW v Bujdoso [2005] HCA 76 .................................................................. 42
Lecture 5: Introduction to Negligence and Duty of Care [B&D Ch 7] .................................................................................................... 43
TOPIC ............................................................................................... 43
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 43
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 43
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 43
Negligence – Duty of Care ................................................................ 43
Scope ...................................................................................................................... 43
What is Negligence? ......................................................................... 43
The Elements of Negligence ................................................................................... 44
Negligence: The early years ................................................................................... 44
x Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 ........................................................ 45
o Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) ..................................................... 46
Established Categories of Duty of Care ............................................ 46
What happens When a Duty Does not Fit an Already Existing Category? ............. 46
x Principle ....................................................................................................... 47
o Reasonable Foreseeability .......................................................................... 47
¾ Palsgraf v Long Island R.R. Co (1928) ......................................................... 47
¾ Wyong Shore Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 ....................................... 47
o Proximity ..................................................................................................... 47
¾ Bryan v Malony (1995) 182 CLR 609 .......................................................... 47
(i) Hill v Van Erp (1997) .................................................................................. 48
x Category ...................................................................................................... 48
o Incrementalism ........................................................................................... 48
Alternate Theories – The Quest for a Unified Approach ....................................... 48
x The Anns 2-Stage Test. ................................................................................ 48
x 3 Stage Caparo Test ..................................................................................... 49
Takeaway ............................................................................................................... 49
Applications of Court imposed Duties in Difficult Circumstances ..... 49
The Unborn Child ................................................................................................... 49
x Lynch v Lynch (1991) ................................................................................... 49
x Watt v Rama [1972] VR 353 ........................................................................ 49
o Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15 ............................................................ 50
Duty to Rescue ....................................................................................................... 50
o Horsley v Maclaren (1971) 22 DLR ............................................................. 50
Impact of the CLA on Duty of Care ......................................................................... 50
Lecture 5: Breach of duty [B&D Ch 8] ............................................ 52
TOPICS ............................................................................................. 52
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 52
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 52
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 52
Introduction ..................................................................................... 53
Roadmap for making a case in Negligence ..........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Establishing a Duty ........................................................................... 53
Salient (most notable/important) Features Test ................................................... 53
x Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 ......................................................... 53
Breach .............................................................................................. 54
CLA S 5B .................................................................................................................. 56
CLA S 5C .................................................................................................................. 57
x Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak & Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48. .................................................................................................. 57
x Council of the City of Greater Taree v Wells [2010] NSWCA 147 ............... 57
Examining Breach of Duty – The Common Law Approach ..................................... 58
¾ Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co ............................ 58
x Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 .......................................... 58
x RTA v Dederer (2007) 324 CLR 330 ............................................................. 59
Test for Breach of Duty .......................................................................................... 60
Reasonable Foreseeability S5B(1)(a) ...................................................................... 60
x Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT)(1998) 192 CLR 431 .................... 60
¾ Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 ..................................................... 60
Calculus of Negligence S5B(2) – (1) must be satisfied first .................................... 61
o Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 ..................................................................... 61
o RTA v Dederer (2007) 238 ALR 761 ............................................................ 61
o Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 ........................................ 61
o Caledonaian Collieries Ltd v Spears (1957) 97 CLR 202 .............................. 61
o Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835 ............................ 61
How Duty 5B(1) and Breach 5B(2) work together ................................................. 62
x Waverly Council v Ferreira [2005] NSWCA 418 .......................................... 62
x Adeels Palance Pty Ltd v Moubarak and Adeels Palace Pty Lts v Bou Najam [2009 HCA 48 .................................................................................................... 62
Res Ipsa Loquitur .............................................................................. 63
a. Nominal Defendant v Haslbauer (1967) 117 CLR 448. ............................... 63
Special Breaches of Duty – Professional Negligence Sect 5O and 5P 63
x Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118. Need to act in accordance with a recognised professional body ............................... 63
x Sidaways v Governors of Bethlehem Royal Hospital [1985] UKHL1. .......... 63
x Rogers v Whitaker (1993) 67 ALJR 47. ........................................................ 63
x Dobler v Halverson [2007] NSWCA 335 ...................................................... 64
Public Authorities S42, 43 and Roads S45 .............................................................. 64
Lecture 6: Causation & damage [B&D Ch 8] .................................. 65
TOPICS ............................................................................................. 65
Damage ............................................................................................ 65
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 65
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 65
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 65
Causation and Damage (Common Law Principles) ........................... 65
1. Factual Causation – But For Test .................................................. 66
o Fitzgerald v Penn (1954) 91 CLR 268 at 277-8 ............................................ 66
But-For Test. ........................................................................................................... 66
o Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 .................... 66
¾ March v Stramare (1991) 171 CLR 506 ...................................................... 66
o McGhee v National Coal Board (1973) 1 WLR 1 ......................................... 67
Novus Actus Interveniens ...................................................................................... 67
o Haber v Walker [1963] VR 339 ................................................................... 67
o Kavanagh v Akhtar (1998) 45 NSWLR 588 .................................................. 67
o McKew v Holland & Hannon & Cubitts Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 ............... 67
2. Legal Causation (Remoteness) ...................................................... 67
o Beavis v Apthorpe(1962) 80 WN (NSW) ..................................................... 67
Remoteness (Wagonmound No 1 & 2) .................................................................. 67
x WagonmoundNo. 1 [1961] AC 388 ............................................................. 67
x WagonmoundNo. 2 [1967] AC 617 ............................................................. 68
x Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 ...................................................... 68
Eggshell Skull Case ................................................................................................. 68
CLA S5D – Statute principles ............................................................ 68
x Strong v Woolworths [2012] HCA 5 ............................................................ 68
Lecture 7: Particular duty areas in negligence [B&D 7.16-7.55] ..... 70
TOPICS ............................................................................................. 70
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 70
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 70
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 70
Particular Duty Areas ....................................................................... 70
Product Liability ..................................................................................................... 70
Professional Opinion .............................................................................................. 70
Defective Structures ............................................................................................... 70
Commercial Premises ............................................................................................. 70
Hotelier/Publican to Intoxicated Patron - .............................................................. 71
o Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Limited(2004) 217 CLR 469 .............................................................................................................. 71
Pure Economic Loss ................................................................................................ 73
o Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller [1964] AC 465 ................................................. 73
o Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta CC (1981) 150 CLR 225 ........ 73
o Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty (2004) 218 CLR 592 ................................... 74
o Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1 .......................................... 74
o Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstadt” (1976) 136 CLR 529 74
o Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180 ............................................................. 74
o Johns Period Furniture v Commonwealth Savings Bank (1980) SASR 224 . 75
Topic 8: Particular Areas of Negligence Under the CLA .................. 76
Part 5: Liability of Public and Other Authorities ............................... 76
Section 42 – Protections for Councils – Liverpool v Turano................................... 76
x Council of the City of Liverpool v Turano & Anor [2008] NSWCA 270 ........ 76
Section 45 – Protection for Road Authorities – Porter v Lachlan; Nth Sydney Council v Roman ..................................................................................................... 77
o PORTER V. LACHLAN SHIRE COUNCIL [2006] NSWCA 126 ......................... 77
o North Sydney Council v Roman [2007] NSWCA 27 ..................................... 78
Part 8: Good Samaritans .................................................................. 79
Part 9: Volunteers ............................................................................ 79
Mental Harm – Tame and Annetts Case ........................................... 79
o Tame v NSW(2002) 211 CLR 317 ................................................................ 80
o Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317 ......................... 80
CLA and Mental Harm – CLA Sect 27...................................................................... 80
Limitations of Mental Harm from Shock – Sect 30 ................................................ 81
Test for Duty of Care – Sect 32 reasonable Person Test ........................................ 81
Lecture 9: Nuisance ...................................................................... 82
TOPICS ............................................................................................. 82
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 82
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 82
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 82
Nuisance .......................................................................................... 82
Context ................................................................................................................... 83
Private Nuisance - Elements ............................................................. 83
Unlawful Interference ............................................................................................ 83
x St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1965) 11 ER 1483 .................................... 83
Balance of Rights .................................................................................................... 83
o Munro v Southern Dairies [1955] VLR 332. ................................................ 83
o Wherry v KB Hutcherson Pty Ltd (1987) NSW ............................................ 84
o Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956) 1WLR 335 ......................................... 84
o Cohen v Perth (2000). ................................................................................. 84
Who can Sue .......................................................................................................... 84
o Oldham v Lawson [1976] VR 654 ................................................................ 84
o Khorasandjian v. Bush [1993] Q.B. 727 ...................................................... 84
o Hunter v Canary Wharf. .............................................................................. 84
Abnormal Plaintiffs ................................................................................................. 84
x Robinson v Kilvert (1889) LR 41 ChD 88 ...................................................... 84
Who can be Sued? .................................................................................................. 84
o Fennell v Robson Excavations [1977] 2 NSWLR 486 ................................... 84
o Goldman v Hargrave [1967] Ch 645 Privy Council. .................................... 85
o De Jager v Payneham and Magill Lodges Hall Incorporated (1984) 36 SASR 498 85
Public Nuisance ................................................................................ 85
Elements ................................................................................................................. 85
Cases ...................................................................................................................... 85
x Silservice Pty Ltd v Supreme Bread Pty Ltd (1949) 50 SR (NSW) 127 ......... 85
Who Can Sue? ........................................................................................................ 86
o Walsh v Ervin [1952] VLR 361 ..................................................................... 86
Remedies ......................................................................................... 86
Defences .......................................................................................... 86
Lecture 10: Defences to negligence [B&D Ch 10] ........................... 87
TOPICS ............................................................................................. 87
ISSUES .............................................................................................. 87
STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 87
OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 87
Defences Overview .......................................................................... 87
Common Law – Common Law superseded by CLA ................................................ 87
CLA.......................................................................................................................... 87
Contributory Negligence .................................................................. 87
Contributory Negligence (Common Law) ............................................................... 87
5R Standard of Contributory Negligence ............................................................... 88
5S 100% Reduction ................................................................................................. 88
Sect 50 Big Reductions for Intoxicated People ...................................................... 88
Just and Equitable (concept) - Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10 .................. 89
o Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10. ....................................................... 89
Assumption of Risk ........................................................................... 89
Volenti Non fit Injuria ............................................................................................. 89
¾ Canterbury Municipal Council v Taylor [2000] NSWCA 24. ....................... 90
¾ Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 .................................. 90
¾ Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656 ...................... 90
CLA Assumption of Risk 5F – 5I .............................................................................. 90
Division 5 Recreational Activities ........................................................................... 91
Illegality – Section 54 ....................................................................... 92
Joint Criminal Enterprise ........................................................................................ 92
o Jackson v Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438 ...................................................... 92
Plaintiff ................................................................................................................... 92
Topic 1: Introduction
fault you chose not to read it). You need to prove that the consequences should have reasonably been known. ‘What did you think it was going to do????’ What was the natural and probable outcome.
x Reckless. Wanton disregard for the consequences e.g. driving your car through a crowd of people. You may not have intended to hit someone but you can either construct the or say the act had complete disregard for public safety.
x Transferred intent. A attempts to hit B but misses and hits C. There are no court cases to support this argument (This act could however be considered negligent).
Strict Liability x No Fault is required x E.g. Nuisance. Dog keeps barking. You can be help liable to nuisance even though you may not directly
control your dog 6. What is the difference between trespass and an action on the case (Negligence)?
x Trespass. An intentional tort o Requires injuries to be caused by the direct action (there is a difference between
injury and damage) o Requires no proof of damage (actionable per se – by itself) o An injury could be interpreted as a breach of a right (as opposed to a physical
injury). E.g. entering property when you are not supposed to could be an injury. o Just the breach of the right may allow you to seek damages.
x Negligence/Action on the Case1. This differs from trespass in that it redresses more indirect injuries than the wilful invasion of the plaintiff's property contemplated by trespass. It was designed to supplement the action of trespass. For example, a person struck by a log thrown over a fence could maintain an action in trespass against the thrower. If, instead, the wrongdoer tossed the log into the street and the plaintiff were hurt by stumbling over it, the plaintiff could maintain an action on the case rather than in trespassa.
o Requires two things to be proved: 1. Indirect injuries. 2. Requires proof of damage.
x Trespass is an easier form of action to take x The historical Distinction (from subject guide)
o Hutchins v Maughan [1947] VLR 131. Maughan laid poison baits which Hutchins sheep dogs ate and died. Maughan put up contributory negligence as a defence. Initially the action of trespass was upheld, Maughan appealed. The issue was immediacy and directness. For an action in trespass, the in jury must follow ‘immediately upon the act of the defendant and not be consequential’
2. In this case, the injury was not immediate therefore the correct action should be negligence (Case for trespass dismissed, case for negligence upheld). Tresspass is direct interference, negligence is indirect interference.
1 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Action+on+the+Case 2 At 133