Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Themes |
Relationship between criminal and civil wrongs Abuse of power Gendered harms |
|
|
Lumba v SoS for the Home Office |
In relation to the trespass to the persons torts, Lord Walker refers to the 'pride that English law has taken for centuries in protecting the subject against arbitrary executive action.' However this case undermined the role of torts against the person as vindicating people's rights. This was a false imprisonment claim. The supreme court held that the claimants had been unlawfully detained. Supreme Court said this was a result of incorrect following of procedure. Claimants wanted compensation but the issue was if the right procedure had been followed they still would have been imprisoned. So the claimants were awarded only nominal damages. |
|
|
McFarlane v Tayside |
Doctor negligently advised Mr McFarlane that he could no longer have children due to his vasectomy. Mrs McFarlane became pregnant. They tried to claim for the pain and suffering of child birth and for the economic cost of brining up a child. Only Mrs McFarlane could give birth so the court compensated her for it. The court said the cost of bringing up a child could be shared between the two parents but society tends to put higher expectations on mothers rather than father so arguably the cost of brining up a child affected Mrs McFarlane more as a result. |
|
|
Letang v Cooper (intention) |
Defendant negligently ran over the claimant's lefs with his car as she sunbathed. It was negligent but the claimant wanted to bring it under trespass because the limitation period for negligence had passed. The claimant argued that as the defendant caused direct harm, this was sufficient for a trespass to the person claim. CA said this wasn't the case-you can't have negligent trespass. The key difference between negligence and trespass is the state of mind. Negligence involves unintentional acts whereas trespass invokes intentional acts. |
|
|
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (intention) |
Intention includes subjective recklessness (unlike criminal law) |
|
|
Unlawful interference |
warrants damages and the consequentialist harms and losses warrant damages |
|
|
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (unlawful interference and damages) |
Criminal prosecution of police officer who fired shots during a raid and killed a member of the claimant's family was unsuccessful. The claimants sued in negligence instead. Chief Constable accepted liability for negligence before the raid and so wrongfully caused the death of the claimant's relative due to negligent planning. The claimants were compensated for this but were not satisfied. They wanted a court to establish that there had been intention, direct and unlawful conduct. They wanted the court to vindicate their rights. The case in tort of battery succeeded. |
