What is tort
Tort in law means a wrong or injury which has certain characters, from the most important of which is that it is redressable in an action for damages at instance of the person wronged or injured
Torts are civil wrong resulting in personal injury or harm that constitutes grounds for a law suit.Thus, tort law addresses conflicts between conflicts between private individuals or entities
According to Prof.Winfeild ,Tortuous liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages
Sir John Salmond defines Tort as a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively …show more content…
The duty is in regard to a personal safety of the invitee. It does not arise in respect of the safety of his property unless there are facts to warrant it. A guest in a public house who complained of theft of his motor bicycle left by him in the yard while he had gone in for refreshments was held no entitled to sue the owner of the public house. It would be otherwise if there was a bailment or entrustment, express or implied.
ii. The duty of the occupier arises in respect of a danger which he knew or ought to have known by reasonable care. He is therefore bound to take care to ascertain existing dangers, and cannot plead ignorance.
iii. The duty of the invitor is different in different cases. In some cases, it may be enough to give notice or warning of the danger to the invitee but in others it may be necessary to take steps to make the premises safe for the invitee, such as lightning, guarding or otherwise. It may not be accurate therefore to lay down a general rule to make the premises safe because it would not apply to the cases where the visitor’s knowledge of the danger other than a unusual and negative a duty , or even if there is duty arose, showed there is no breach of it. It may be enough to warn a business visitor that there is a ferocious dog is tied in the premises .If he goes there or meddles with it , he may not be able to complain. On the other hand, if is not properly secured than warning is not …show more content…
He will also be liable if the fault was that of an independent contractor employed by him. In Thomas v Cremin the defendant, a ship owner was held liable for injury sustained by the plaintiff, an employee of a stevedore engaged in discharging bulk grain from the hold of the ship. The injury was caused by the fall on the plaintiff of a heavy wooden shore which is fixed to the ship side by an independent contractor, a firm on shipwrights in Australia. The wooden shore fell because it s having been insecurely fixed to the ship with short instead of long nails, a defect which cannot be determined by the ship owner after the work is over. Indeed, the Australian government has certified that the work has been according to the local regulations. The correct method of approach in this matter is the principle stated in the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.However the occupier is not liable for the causal or the collateral negligence of a contractor employer to do a harmless piece of work, e.g., a contractor’s servant letting fall a tool from above while repairing the
Tort in law means a wrong or injury which has certain characters, from the most important of which is that it is redressable in an action for damages at instance of the person wronged or injured
Torts are civil wrong resulting in personal injury or harm that constitutes grounds for a law suit.Thus, tort law addresses conflicts between conflicts between private individuals or entities
According to Prof.Winfeild ,Tortuous liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages
Sir John Salmond defines Tort as a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively …show more content…
The duty is in regard to a personal safety of the invitee. It does not arise in respect of the safety of his property unless there are facts to warrant it. A guest in a public house who complained of theft of his motor bicycle left by him in the yard while he had gone in for refreshments was held no entitled to sue the owner of the public house. It would be otherwise if there was a bailment or entrustment, express or implied.
ii. The duty of the occupier arises in respect of a danger which he knew or ought to have known by reasonable care. He is therefore bound to take care to ascertain existing dangers, and cannot plead ignorance.
iii. The duty of the invitor is different in different cases. In some cases, it may be enough to give notice or warning of the danger to the invitee but in others it may be necessary to take steps to make the premises safe for the invitee, such as lightning, guarding or otherwise. It may not be accurate therefore to lay down a general rule to make the premises safe because it would not apply to the cases where the visitor’s knowledge of the danger other than a unusual and negative a duty , or even if there is duty arose, showed there is no breach of it. It may be enough to warn a business visitor that there is a ferocious dog is tied in the premises .If he goes there or meddles with it , he may not be able to complain. On the other hand, if is not properly secured than warning is not …show more content…
He will also be liable if the fault was that of an independent contractor employed by him. In Thomas v Cremin the defendant, a ship owner was held liable for injury sustained by the plaintiff, an employee of a stevedore engaged in discharging bulk grain from the hold of the ship. The injury was caused by the fall on the plaintiff of a heavy wooden shore which is fixed to the ship side by an independent contractor, a firm on shipwrights in Australia. The wooden shore fell because it s having been insecurely fixed to the ship with short instead of long nails, a defect which cannot be determined by the ship owner after the work is over. Indeed, the Australian government has certified that the work has been according to the local regulations. The correct method of approach in this matter is the principle stated in the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.However the occupier is not liable for the causal or the collateral negligence of a contractor employer to do a harmless piece of work, e.g., a contractor’s servant letting fall a tool from above while repairing the