Summary
A tort is a civil breach that results from trespass or negligence. This might result in the aggrieved person seeking compensation for the damages. Intentional interference usually results when the offender interferes with another person’s property knowingly. This contrasts with negligence as the offender in such a case interferes with property unknowingly, without concern or responsibility. When a person is accused of intentional interference or trespass of personal property, then the defendant has to prove that the interference was justified. This might be in cases where the accused did so in self-defense while protecting property, or while trying to save someone’s life. It might also be as a result of permission granted from the owner of the property. The defendant might also have done this after obtaining permission from the courts. In case the defendant fails to justify the interference, then he/she might be liable for trespass and interference. The offender might therefore be required to pay for compensation or for any damages that resulted from the interference (Weissenberger 2001, p. 120).
Tort of Negligence
Under this tort, everyone is obliged to ensure the well-being of his/her neighbor and has a moral responsibility not to engage in acts of omission that might injure another person. A product manufacturer is expected to ensure the safety of the consumer. A contractor, architect or engineer is also supposed to ensure the safety of those who will use the structure, those who live adjacent to it or trespassers. A person might be injured on the property during the manufacturing or construction process or during the sale or distribution of property attached to the development of the property. Under such circumstances, the victim might sue the owner for compensation. In such a case the plaintiff must prove that the injuries were a result of the negligence of the defendant. In case the defendant is found to be negligent, then he/she is required to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries. For the court to make a ruling on such a case there must be enough evidence to prove that the injury or damage resulted from the negligence of the defendant. A court might appoint a jury that looks at the circumstantial evidence provided in order to come up with a comprehensive ruling. Proximate cause is the actual cause of an accident on one’s property.
Breach of Duty
Duty entails the measures that are to be undertaken by someone to prevent accidents. Everyone has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of others. A contractor, engineer or architect is supposed to accomplish his/her duties effectively so as to ensure that the project under construction is done as per the expected standards. This helps in ensuring the safety of those on the construction site, the trespassers and users of the structure. If the designing or construction is poorly done it might result in the injury of other people and the people responsible are liable for any damages that might occur due to their breach of duty.
Someone might trespass on another person’s property. This happens when the trespasser gets into that property without the owner’s approval and this is usually in different forms. Someone might pass through, get in or occupy the property without permission. A license is therefore required for someone to get into private property. If a person is issued with a license he/she does not necessarily need the approval of the owner to enter the property (Statsky 2010, p.230).
In the event of negligence, the plaintiff might sue for compensation from the defendant. The property owner might however defend himself/herself in the event of contributory negligence by proving that both the defendants and the plaintiff’s negligence resulted in the mentioned injury. If the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, then he/she cannot be compensated for the damages. If the defendant had the last chance to prevent the injury, then he/she might be compelled to compensate the plaintiff for any damages. The owner might also be in a joint enterprise which is usually expected to have monetary obligations. In case of any damages, the enterprise might be required to compensate the complainant for the damages caused. A case that falls under this tort is that of Caparo Industries plc against Dickman. The company wanted to take over Fidelity plc by purchasing most of its shares. The company was not doing well. It was later realized that the company was in a worse state than it had been revealed. Caparo plc decided to sue the company’s accountant Dickman for negligence after giving false information concerning the state of the company.
Strict Liability
Liability is usually maintained in spite of the intention of the action. It is considered that it was the performance of a particular action that resulted in the injury of another person. This is basically aimed at preventing the occurrence of a similar incidence in the future. While issuing a judgment on tort cases, the court usually issues varied verdicts. The defendant might be required to compensate the plaintiff in monetary form. In some cases, however, the defendant might be required to openly admit the fault. The court might make a ruling in spite of the seriousness of the injury made to the plaintiff. In some cases, however, monetary compensation or any judgments made so as to cater for the bodily injuries of the plaintiff are made in addition to other penalties (Drobnig 2004, p. 100-105)
Nuisance
Under the United Kingdom Law, there a various types of nuisances. They include absolute, private as well as a public nuisance. Private nuisance entails an act that makes it impossible for someone to enjoy those privileges that accompany the ownership or use of land/property as it is with other people who own the same. Public nuisance on the other hand entails the acts that prevent a group of people or the general public from enjoying such privileges. With absolute nuisance, the accused is usually liable for the disturbances. The owner of the real property might be having a machine that causes noise pollution. In such a case, in spite of the machine being on the owner’s property, neighbors can sue him/her for nuisance. The court might therefore opt to restrict the owner from using the machine. In case of any damages for instance if the noise impeded the hearing of the victim then the owner of the property might be ordered to compensate him/her (Buckley 2004, p. 200). A good example is the Ryland versus Fletcher case. In this case, Ryland hired contractors to help in constructing a reservoir. During the construction, instructors discovered old coal shafts that linked to Fletcher’s mine. Hey losely covered the same. Later when the reservoir burst, the water flooded Fletcher’s mine and caused a significant loss. Fletcher, therefore, sued Ryland for nuisance.
Misrepresentation and Nondisclosure
Misinformation or nondisclosure of vital information forms a significant percentage of cases involving the breaking of the tort laws. They reflect negligence which in the long run results in injuries or damages. The seller of real property might fail to disclose information concerning the bad side of the property or misinform the buyer concerning the performance of the property. If the buyer learns about the downside of the property, then he/she might sue for compensation. The owner of such property is obliged to give appropriate information concerning the property either as required by law or upon request. If the buyer or user of real property is informed of the risk that comes with the property then it is upon him/her to take precautions and avoid any damages. If the person is injured or the property is damaged, then the owner of that property might not necessarily be held responsible for any damages.
Misuse of Legal Procedures
The legal system in the United Kingdom allows any complainant to access the courts and file a lawsuit against anyone with ease. However, some complainants take advantage of this and might decide to file a case against the owner of real property for reasons of harassment or detraction. If the court rules in favor of the defendant or finds out that the case is aimed at detraction and harassment, then the defendant might file a case against the complainant. This is aimed at getting compensation for any losses or expenses incurred during the court proceedings.
Domestic Relations Torts
There have been significant adjustments in the domestic relations tort laws. This has significantly changed the ways in which families can collect the damages. There might also be interferences from the family units themselves. Initially, women and children were perceived as being under the custody of their husbands and parents respectively. With the adjustments made to the domestic relationship tort laws, the owners of real property might have to factor in children as well wives in the ownership of such property. This is particularly significant during the purchase, selling, inheritance as well as compensating the complainants in the event of damages. The wives, children and husband are treated as distinct entities with individual rights. If the real property owner is incapacitated or deceased, the beneficiaries have a claim on such property as required by the United Kingdom law.
In some cases, the victim of tort actions might die due to the injuries or effects of the tort. In such a case, the dependants of the victims have a right to be compensated for the damages. They can sue for the benefits they would have received in case the deceased was still alive. The owner of land or real property that caused the death of the diseased might be required to pay for the damages as well as compensate the dependents of the deceased.
Torts of Economic Relations
In this particular case, the complainant might sue for damages caused due to the actions of the defendants that resulted in some economic losses to the plaintiff. This might be due to the actions that interfered with business partnerships, business prospects or agreements. In such a case, the plaintiff has to prove beyond doubt that the actions of the defendant were intentional and they resulted in some significant economic losses. If the owner of real property or land is issued under such circumstances and is found guilty, then the appropriate compensation for the damages must be made. This was the case with the Taff Vale Railway Company which sued the Amalgamated Railway Society for holding a strike that resulted in the company incurring significant losses. The trade union had to pay the company.
Other Obligations
In some cases, a public officer might be required to pay a public debt that was incurred during his/her time in office. Under such circumstances, the owner of the real property might be issued with a notice to fulfill this obligation. If he/she fails to do this, then the property might be auctioned to cover the debt. The owner is also obliged to fulfill his other obligations that might be in form of contracts, liabilities or other legal agreements under which the real property was attached. Breaching such contracts and agreements might result in the owner being held responsible for any damages and hence being sued for compensation (Robinson, 2011, p. 250).
A real property owner might also be issued with a tort serve if he/she takes another person’s property, wrongfully detains someone or destroys someone’s property. If the owner engages in fraudulent deals on such property, he/she might be sued under the United Kingdom Law. He/she is also held responsible for any battery, assault or any malicious interference done by himself/herself, the employees, children or those under his/her guardianship. In case of any damages, then he/she is required by the law to compensate if found guilty. The property owner might also be sued by the employees for any wages, overtime payments or other penalties that have been accrued but not paid yet. The court might order the owner to make the payments as per the agreements.
The owner of the real property might also be held responsible for any actions that result from defamation, libel, malice or slander. These might be committed by the owner, employee, children or any person under his/her guardianship. The property owner might be sued for the damages to the victim.
Defenses
The property owner might not necessarily be held responsible for all the damages or injuries that might occur on that property. For instance, if a burglar is injured while jumping from a building to avoid being arrested, he/she cannot be compensated for the injuries. On the other hand, if a trespasser is injured while trespassing a construction site, then the owner might be required to compensate for any damages or injuries that might result. If an employee is injured during construction, he might sue for compensation from the property owner. On the other hand, if the employee was warned about certain dangers that are likely to be encountered during the construction, then he/she might not be compensated. This is particularly true in cases where the actions that led to the injury were solely from the victim who failed to take precautions. Such a case can be passed by using the Occupiers Act of 1957. In the ‘Roles versus Nathan’ case, two workers were shocked by a carbon monoxide gas while working on the chimney that released these poisonous fumes. Their widows sued for compensation even though the defendant argued that the two had been warned concerning the danger yet went ahead with their tasks without taking the appropriate precautions (Wild 2010, p. 99-106).
In the United Kingdom laws, therefore, the owner of real property is prone to harm as well as tort serves so as to rectify situations. This is usually in the event of damages incurred on such property as well as those actions that might result from the actions of employees, children or people under his/her guardianship.
References
Buckley, W. 2004, Torts Personal Injury Law, Cengage Learning, London.
Drobnig, U. 2004, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Robinson, N. 2011, Environmental Regulation of Real Property, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Statsky, W. 2010′ Torts: Personal Injury Litigation, Cengage Learning, London.
Weissenberger, G. 2001, The law of premises liability, Anderson Pub. Co., Cincinnati.
Wild, C. 2010, smith and keenan’s english law, Longman, London.