The ‘eggshell skull’ rule |
|
The “eggshell skull” or “thin skull” rule is a principle in tort law that holds the tortfeasor responsible for the injuries inflicted on their victim, as they were found at the time of the incident. This means that even if the victim is particularly fragile and suffers greater harm than the average person, the tortfeasor must still take them into consideration. For example, in the case of Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405, the defendant’s negligence resulted in a burn that induced cancer in the claimant. Although the defendant could not have foreseen the cancer, they could have reasonably foreseen that the claimant would be burnt. Thus, the “eggshell skull” rule applies, and the defendant is held liable for the harm caused. It is important to note that the foreseeability of personal injury is key to the application of this rule. If personal injury was foreseeable, then the tortfeasor must take their victim as they find them, even if they suffer greater harm than what was expected. |
Employers’ primary liability |
What is employers’ liability and where is it recognized?
Employers’ liability is a legal obligation that employers have towards their employees. It is recognized in both common law and statute law.
What is the primary statutory source of an employer’s liability?
The primary statutory source of an employer’s liability is Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 1974).
What is the duty imposed on employers by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974?
Under the HSWA 1974, employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees to the best of their ability and to the extent that is reasonably practicable.
What are the employer’s responsibilities regarding the provision of a safe place of work?
Employers have a legal obligation to ensure that their employees have a safe place of work, including maintaining the workplace in a safe condition and providing safe means of access and egress.
What is the employer’s duty to provide a safe system of working?
Employers have a duty to provide a proper and safe system of working, which includes providing instruction and training, supervision and warnings, necessary safety equipment, and considering the physical layout and sequence of work.
Can an employer be held liable for psychiatric injury to an employee?
Yes, an employer can be held liable for psychiatric injury to an employee if the injury is reasonably foreseeable due to work-related stress or other factors.
The guidelines set forth in Hatton v Sutherland state that the stress must be reasonably foreseeable and connected to the workplace, and the employer’s liability principles apply. The employer is expected to assume that employees can handle normal job pressures unless there is a specific issue or vulnerability.
When can an employer be held liable for repetitive strain injury?
An employer can be held liable for repetitive strain injury if they fail to educate employees about the risks associated with such injuries and the importance of taking proper breaks.
Can an employer be held responsible for injuries caused by employee pranks?
Yes, an employer can be held responsible for injuries caused by employee pranks if they fail to provide competent and qualified staff and prioritize health and safety.
Nuisance |
What is nuisance?
Nuisance refers to unreasonable interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land or related rights. It includes disputes between neighbors over land use and environmental issues like pollution.
What is public nuisance?
Public nuisance is an act or omission that violates a legal duty and causes inconvenience or harm to the public’s exercise of common rights. It is both a crime and a tort, and it affects the general public or a specific class of the public.
What are the criteria to establish the tort of public nuisance?
To establish the tort of public nuisance, two criteria must be met. First, the individuals affected by the nuisance must be part of the public or a specific class of the public. Second, the individual claiming the nuisance must have suffered unique and particular harm in addition to the inconvenience experienced by the general public.
What is the liability of a landowner for public nuisance?
A landowner may be liable for public nuisance if acts or physical hazards attributed to public nuisance occur on their land without their knowledge. Actual knowledge is not necessary to establish liability; it is enough that the landowner knew or should have known about the consequences of the nuisance.
What is private nuisance?
Private nuisance refers to actions or circumstances that affect an individual’s use or enjoyment of their land or rights to the land. It is distinct from public nuisance, which affects the general public.
What elements must be demonstrated to succeed in a claim of private nuisance?
To succeed in a claim of private nuisance, the claimant must demonstrate: unreasonable use of land by the defendant causing harm, detriment to the neighbor’s property or use of it, and foreseeability of the event or action that caused the nuisance.
What factors do courts consider when deciding a private nuisance claim?
Factors that courts consider include the duration of the nuisance, whether the interfering activity would cause an ordinary occupier to be annoyed, the utility of the defendant’s conduct, relevant case law, and whether the defendant’s act was malicious.
In Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, it was established that private nuisance is based on reasonableness, and fault is not necessary for a successful claim. The case involved a cricket club where cricket balls frequently hit neighboring properties, causing damage and inconvenience.
How does the offense of sending racially offensive material to individuals relate to private nuisance?
The offense of sending racially offensive material to individuals is considered a private nuisance because it interferes with an individual’s right to enjoy their property without disturbance. In the case of R v Rimmington [2006], the repetitive harm suffered by individual recipients indicated that it was a private nuisance rather than a public nuisance.
Stay tuned for more notes ………
“Your ultimate destination for legal education and career advancement, invest in your legal career and stay ahead of the curve”
Leave A Comment