Atjaunināt sīkdatņu piekrišanu

Principles of Tort Law [Hardback]

3.50/5 (6 ratings by Goodreads)
(Queen Mary University of London)
  • Formāts: Hardback, 1126 pages, height x width x depth: 255x200x60 mm, weight: 2720 g
  • Izdošanas datums: 22-Sep-2016
  • Izdevniecība: Cambridge University Press
  • ISBN-10: 1107151368
  • ISBN-13: 9781107151369
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
  • Hardback
  • Cena: 109,33 €
  • Grāmatu piegādes laiks ir 3-4 nedēļas, ja grāmata ir uz vietas izdevniecības noliktavā. Ja izdevējam nepieciešams publicēt jaunu tirāžu, grāmatas piegāde var aizkavēties.
  • Daudzums:
  • Ielikt grozā
  • Piegādes laiks - 4-6 nedēļas
  • Pievienot vēlmju sarakstam
Principles of Tort LawPalielināt
  • Formāts: Hardback, 1126 pages, height x width x depth: 255x200x60 mm, weight: 2720 g
  • Izdošanas datums: 22-Sep-2016
  • Izdevniecība: Cambridge University Press
  • ISBN-10: 1107151368
  • ISBN-13: 9781107151369
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
Permanent link: https://www.kriso.lv/db/9781107151369.html
Keywords:
Presenting the law of tort as a body of principles, this authoritative textbook leads students to an incisive and clear understanding of the subject. Each tort is carefully structured and examined within a consistent analytical framework that guides students through its preconditions, elements, defences and remedies. Clear summaries and comparisons accompany the detailed exposition, and further support is provided by numerous diagrams and tables, which clarify complex aspects of the law. Critical discussion of legal judgments encourages students to develop strong analytical and case-reading skills, whilst key reform proposals and leading cases from other jurisdictions illustrate different potential solutions to conundrums in tort law. A rich companion website, featuring ten additional chapters and sections on more advanced areas of tort law, completes the learning package. Written specifically for students, the text is also ideal for practitioners, litigants, policymakers and law reformers seeking a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the law.

Recenzijas

'[ This book] provides a clear, detailed and challenging account of the law of tort The work is a most welcome contribution to the field, and one that will be of great benefit to students, practitioners, academics and judges. I cannot commend it highly enough.' The Right Honourable Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice 'This book achieves what few textbooks do: it combines a deep and nuanced understanding of tort as a body of principle with a patient, detailed and accessible account of the case-law.' Emmanuel Voyiakis, The London School of Economics and Political Science 'Students will benefit from the clear structure of this excellent textbook, in which the details of the single torts are examined in the context of the general principles of tort law. This method enables those who approach this subject for the first time to follow the in-depth analysis without losing the overview.' Francesco Giglio, University of Manchester

Papildus informācija

Presenting tort law as a body of principles, this authoritative textbook guides students to a detailed understanding of the subject.
Foreword xxiv
Preface xi
How to use this book xxvii
Table of cases xxix
Table of legislation lxvi
List of abbreviations lxxv
Notes on mode of citation lxxix
1 The role of modern Tort law
1(34)
What is a tort?
1(8)
The range of modern torts in English law
1(7)
Disparities among the torts
8(1)
The purposes of Tort law
9(6)
Torts in context
15(7)
Obtaining monetary compensation
15(2)
Concurrent liability in Contract and in Tort
17(5)
Tort litigation
22(5)
Sources of Tort law
22(1)
Costs rules in tort litigation
23(2)
Strike-out applications in Tort litigation
25(2)
Torts and death
27(10)
An action by/against the Estate
27(2)
The dependants' action
29(6)
Part 1 Negligence 35(548)
2 Duty I - General principles governing duty of care
37(88)
Introduction
37(7)
The framework for negligence
37(1)
A brief historical overview
38(6)
The modern duty of care tests
44(6)
The three approaches: general
44(3)
Assuming the existence of a duty of care
47(3)
Reasonable foreseeability of harm (Caparo #1)
50(11)
General principles
50(5)
Claimants susceptible to injury
55(1)
The unborn claimant
56(5)
Proximity (Caparo #2)
61(3)
Policy factors (Caparo #3)
64(49)
General principles
64(7)
Children (young)
71(1)
Doctors: 'wrongful conception' claims
72(9)
Doctors: 'wrongful birth' claims
81(4)
Emergency services: fire brigade and coastal rescue services
85(3)
Emergency services: the ambulance service
88(1)
Police
89(10)
The 'Bad Samaritan'
99(5)
Those who need rescuing
104(2)
The 'Good Samaritan'
106(1)
Soldiers in combat
106(6)
Sporting contests: referees, participants and others
112(1)
The voluntary assumption of responsibility test
113(10)
Proving an assumption of responsibility
114(6)
Proving reliance
120(3)
The incremental test
123(2)
3 Duty II - Particular duty scenarios
125(45)
Statutory preclusion of a duty of care
125(6)
A mother's immunity
125(2)
'Wrongful life' claims
127(4)
Failure-to-warn liability
131(15)
Introduction
131(1)
Inherent risks
132(1)
Objectively-significant risks
133(9)
Subjectively-significant risks
142(4)
Timings
146(1)
Pure omissions
146(6)
The general rule
146(2)
Exceptional scenarios
148(4)
The failure to control, supervise or detain third parties
152(18)
Introduction
152(2)
The leading cases
154(4)
The legal analysis of the leading cases
158(12)
4 Duty III - Pure economic loss
170(48)
Introduction
170(1)
Negligent misstatement
171(27)
Introduction
171(3)
Framework
174(1)
Reasonable foreseeability of economic loss
174(1)
The Hedley Byrne, Caparo and incremental tests
175(4)
The bipartite relationship
179(3)
The tri-partite relationship
182(8)
The 'victim' scenario
190(6)
Matters which do not preclude a duty of care from arising
196(2)
Negligent provision of services
198(11)
Introduction
198(2)
Relevant scenarios and legal reasoning
200(9)
Pure relational economic loss
209(9)
The scenario
209(2)
The governing policy reasons
211(5)
A comparative perspective
216(2)
5 Duty IV - Pure psychiatric injury
218(72)
Introduction
218(5)
Uncertainties and problems
218(2)
Pure versus consequential mental injury
220(2)
The framework
222(1)
Precondition #1: A recognised psychiatric injury
223(7)
The threshold principle
223(2)
The diagnostic classifications
225(5)
Precondition #2: The type of claimant
230(16)
Primary victims
231(8)
Secondary victims
239(3)
The elevated primary victim
242(2)
Fear-of-the-future claimants
244(1)
Residuary claimants
245(1)
Stress-at-work claimants
245(1)
Conclusion
246(1)
Primary victim claimants
246(10)
Duty of care requirements
246(6)
Other features of note
252(4)
Secondary victim claimants
256(21)
Duty of care requirements
256(20)
Can C be both 'primary' and 'secondary' victim?
276(1)
Elevated primary victim claimants
277(2)
Fear-of-the-future claimants
279(2)
Residuary claimants
281(3)
Stress-at-work claimants
284(6)
6 Breach I - The standard of care
290(48)
Introduction
290(4)
Reasonableness, not perfection
290(2)
No average or team standard
292(1)
An objective standard, subject to exceptions
293(1)
The impact (if any) of D's characteristics
294(21)
Specialism
294(7)
Age
301(4)
Disability (physical or mental)
305(3)
Inexperience
308(7)
The impact (if any) of the circumstances in which D is operating
315(23)
'Agony of the moment' scenarios
315(4)
'Diagnosis with a focus' scenarios
319(1)
Locality
320(3)
Dangerous recreational/sporting pursuits
323(8)
Available resources and facilities
331(7)
7 Breach II — Proving negligence
338(66)
Introduction
338(2)
The framework
339(1)
A matter of terminology
339(1)
Preliminary matters
340(12)
The test of foreseeability
340(4)
The date for assessing breach
344(3)
Ruling out 'inevitable accidents'
347(1)
Potential dual bases of liability: vicarious liability and systemic breach
348(4)
Testing precautionary steps against the quadrant
352(11)
The quadrant of factors
353(6)
The impact of the Compensation Act 2006, s 1
359(4)
The Bolam/Bolitho framework for breach analysis
363(22)
The Bolam test
363(9)
The Bolitho 'gloss'
372(6)
The effect of the SARAH Act 2015
378(1)
Where the Bolam/Bolitho framework does not apply
379(6)
Other potential tests of breach
385(2)
Contravening specific duties of care
385(1)
Contravening relevant standards or rules
385(1)
Contravening the 'making it worse' rule
386(1)
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
387(12)
Setting the context
387(2)
Raising (and rebutting) the doctrine
389(6)
The burden of proof
395(2)
Two concluding notes
397(2)
What does not prove breach
399(5)
8 Causation of damage
404(83)
Introduction
404(3)
Principles, with a splash of 'common sense'
404(1)
A note on terminology
405(1)
The role of policy
406(1)
Pre-requisite: proof of compensable damage
407(4)
The de minimis threshold of damage
407(4)
The 'loss of a chance' claim
411(1)
The first step: the classic 'but-for' test
411(8)
The importance, and limits, of probability
412(4)
Legal points about the balance-of-probabilities assessment
416(3)
Exception #1: The 'material contribution to risk' exception
419(20)
The McGhee/Fairchild scenario
420(7)
The Wilsher scenario
427(2)
Limiting the scope of the McGhee/Fairchild exceptional theorem
429(5)
Apportionment of damages
434(2)
The 'doubling the risk' theorem
436(3)
The 'hunting cases'
439(1)
Exception #2: The 'material contribution to damage' exception
439(4)
The Bonnington principle
439(1)
A comparison with the McGhee/Fairchild principle
440(2)
Damages under the Bonnington principle
442(1)
Conclusion
442(1)
Exception #3: The Bolitho causation theorem
443(4)
The leading case and theorem explained
443(2)
Extending the Bolitho causal theorem to 'out-of-house' scenarios
445(2)
Exception #4: The Chester v Afshar causal theorem in 'failure-to-warn' cases
447(9)
The general rule
447(5)
The Chester v Afshar exception
452(4)
Intervening acts in the causal chain
456(11)
The characteristics of an intervening act
457(1)
The effect of an intervening act
458(1)
Particular contexts
459(7)
Subsequent medical treatment
466(1)
Causation and 'pure omissions'
467(2)
loss of a chance' claims
469(8)
What 'loss of a chance' means
469(1)
In the medical negligence context
470(5)
In the economic context
475(2)
Supervening event #1: D2's supervening tort damaged an already-damaged claimant
477(4)
Successive tortfeasors
478(2)
Judicial reaction to the Baker v Willoughby principle
480(1)
Supervening event #2: Non-tortious reasons would have led to the same damage
481(2)
The burden of proof
483(4)
9 Remoteness of damage
487(26)
Introduction
487(2)
What the remoteness enquiry addresses
487(1)
Framework for analysis
488(1)
The kind or type of damage
489(10)
From Re Polemis to Wagon Mound
489(1)
The meaning of 'reasonable foreseeability'
490(7)
Exception to the requirement of reasonable foreseeability
497(2)
The position of 'egg-shell' claimants with pre-existing vulnerabilities
499(5)
The 'normal fortitude' rule
500(1)
The 'egg-shell skull' rule
500(4)
The 'scope of duty' enquiry
504(7)
A further control mechanism
504(3)
The SAAMCO principle
507(2)
Failure-to-warn scenarios
509(2)
Too many causal links
511(1)
Policy: A 'final' arbiter
512(1)
10 Defences
513(34)
Introduction
513(1)
Contributory negligence
513(16)
Preliminary matters
513(5)
The elements
518(7)
The doctor—patient context: a policy and a comparative vignette
525(4)
Voluntary assumption of risk (volenti)
529(10)
What volenti means
529(1)
The elements
530(7)
Miscellaneous issues
537(2)
Therapeutic privilege
539(4)
Where it applies
539(1)
The elements
540(3)
Necessity
543(4)
The scope
543(1)
The elements
544(3)
11 Remedies
547(36)
Introduction
547(1)
Compensatory damages
548(22)
Pecuniary versus non-pecuniary damages
549(5)
The conventional sum
554(1)
Heads of damage available to the Estate
555(3)
Heads of damage available to Dependants under the FAA
558(9)
Bereavement damages
567(2)
Is reform needed?
569(1)
Aggravated damages
570(3)
Non-availability for negligence
570(2)
No 'back door' recovery
572(1)
Exemplary damages
573(7)
The position in English law
573(2)
Practical problems
575(3)
Policy objections
578(2)
Nominal damages
580(1)
Restitutionary damages
581(2)
Part II Specific negligence regimes 583(104)
12 Occupiers' liability
585(58)
The cause of action defined
585(4)
Where the statutes are not applicable
585(1)
Employees who are visitors to an occupier's site
586(2)
The framework
588(1)
Pre-requisites for the legislation to apply
589(12)
Precondition #1: An 'occupier'
589(3)
Precondition #2: Tremises' to which the legislation applies
592(6)
Precondition #3: The type of danger posed by the premises
598(3)
Which Act applies?
601(7)
Visitors versus trespassers
602(1)
Downgrading a 'visitor' to trespasser status
603(3)
Upgrading a 'trespasser' to visitor status
606(2)
Visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
608(25)
A duty of care toward a visitor
608(1)
The requisite standard of care
609(5)
Proving breach
614(18)
Causation/remoteness
632(1)
Trespassers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
633(6)
A duty of care toward a trespasser
634(4)
Setting the standard of care, and proving breach
638(1)
Defences
639(3)
Contributory negligence
640(1)
Acts of strangers
640(1)
Volenti
640(1)
Exclusion by agreement or otherwise
641(1)
Remedies
642(1)
13 Public authority liability
643(44)
Introduction
643(2)
Direct versus vicarious liability
644(1)
Ancillary causes of action
644(1)
The framework
645(1)
Pre-requisite legal issues
645(8)
The East Suffolk principle
645(6)
The policy versus operational distinction
651(1)
The 'pure omissions' principle
652(1)
Establishing a duty of care
653(26)
The 'making it worse' principle
654(1)
Assuming responsibility for C, rather than for the 'common good'
655(4)
The Caparo framework
659(19)
An incidental duty of care
678(1)
Impact of the ECHR
679(6)
Unenacted law reform
685(2)
Part III Other selected torts 687(278)
14 Trespass to the person
689(63)
Introduction
689(3)
Trespasses versus actions on the case
689(2)
Ancillary actions
691(1)
Assault and battery
692(10)
The framework
692(1)
Elements of battery
693(6)
Elements of assault
699(3)
False imprisonment
702(11)
Definition
702(1)
Element #1: A constraint
703(6)
Element #2: The requisite intent
709(1)
Element #3: Causation
710(3)
Defences
713(28)
Consent
713(8)
Necessity
721(8)
Prevention of crime, disorder or ill-discipline
729(6)
Self-defence
735(1)
Contributory fault
736(3)
Provocation
739(2)
Remedies
741(11)
Compensatory damages
741(4)
Aggravated damages
745(1)
Exemplary damages
746(3)
Vindicatory damages
749(3)
15 Defamation
752(81)
Introduction
752(3)
Framework for the tort
752(1)
The tensions and complexities in defamation
753(2)
Ancillary actions
755(1)
Pre-requisites
755(14)
Establishing libel or slander
755(6)
The matter is justiciable
761(2)
Proof of a 'real and substantial tort'
763(4)
Capacity of C to sue
767(2)
Element #1: A defamatory imputation
769(14)
Ascertaining the meaning
769(3)
Whether the imputation is defamatory
772(6)
Focusing on the reasonable reader/listener
778(2)
Focusing on the publication
780(2)
Intent
782(1)
Element #2: Identification
783(5)
General principles
783(1)
Problematical scenarios
783(4)
Group defamation
787(1)
Element #3: Publication
788(8)
When publication occurs
789(1)
About the publishee
790(2)
Publication and the internet
792(4)
Honest opinion (fair comment)
796(6)
A statement of opinion (not a statement of fact)
797(2)
The basis of the opinion
799(1)
Honest opinion, based on an existing fact, or a privileged statement
800(2)
Absence of malice
802(1)
Truth (or justification)
802(4)
An imputation of fact
803(1)
Substantially true
803(3)
Peer-reviewed statements in scientific or academic journals
806(1)
Innocent dissemination
807(4)
At common law
808(1)
Statutory defence for secondary publishers
809(1)
Operators of websites
810(1)
'Public interest' privilege (formerly, the Reynolds defence)
811(6)
General matters re Reynolds
811(1)
A matter of public interest
812(3)
An objective reasonable belief
815(2)
Fact or opinion
817(1)
Qualified privilege
817(5)
Common law qualified privilege
817(3)
Statutory qualified privilege
820(2)
Reportage
822(2)
Neutral reporting
823(1)
Legitimate-public interest
823(1)
Absolute privilege
824(1)
Consent and acquiescence
825(1)
An offer of amends
825(2)
Remedies
827(6)
Damages
827(2)
Other relevant matters
829(2)
Declaration of falsity
831(1)
Injunctive relief
831(1)
Order to a newspaper to publish report
832(1)
16 Private nuisance
833(85)
Defining the cause of action
833(2)
The framework
833(2)
The costs of litigation
835(1)
Pre-requisites for the tort
835(15)
Precondition #1: Capacity of C to sue
835(6)
Precondition #2: Capacity of D to be sued
841(7)
Precondition #3: The threshold principle
848(2)
Element #1: An interference with use and enjoyment of land
850(11)
Types of interferences
851(5)
Isolated interferences versus a state of affairs
856(2)
Emanation
858(3)
Element #2: An unreasonable user
861(21)
General points
861(1)
Application to 'physical interference' nuisances
862(1)
Relevant factors for the balancing exercise
863(10)
'Coming to the nuisance'
873(2)
The role of negligence
875(7)
Element #3(a): Causation
882(2)
Damage to land/interest in land
882(1)
The 'but-for' test
883(1)
Element #3(b): The damage is not too remote
884(6)
Type of damage
884(2)
The exclusionary rule
886(2)
Abnormal sensitivity
888(2)
Defences
890(11)
Statutory authorisation
890(5)
A right of prescription
895(2)
The independent contractor/non-delegable duty defence
897(2)
The 'common enemy' doctrine
899(1)
Estoppel by acquiescence
899(1)
Acts of God
900(1)
Contributory negligence/volenti
900(1)
Remedies
901(14)
Compensatory damages
901(7)
Injunctive relief
908(3)
Damages in lieu of an injunction
911(2)
Restitutionary damages
913(1)
Aggravated and exemplary damages
914(1)
Abatement
914(1)
The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998
915(3)
17 The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
918(47)
Defining the rule
918(1)
Putting the rule into context
919(5)
A strict liability tort - but in a limited sense only
919(2)
A brief history of the rule
921(3)
Pre-requisites for the tort
924(2)
Precondition #1: Capacity of C to sue
924(1)
Precondition #2: Capacity of D to be sued
924(2)
Element #1: The escape of a dangerous thing
926(9)
Things' which have escaped
926(2)
An 'escape' is necessary
928(4)
The mischief or danger test
932(1)
What D must know or have reasonably foreseen
933(2)
Intentional versus accidental escapes
935(1)
Element #2: Deliberate accumulation
935(2)
Element #3: A non-natural user of the land
937(8)
A dramatic change over time
937(1)
The modern articulation and application of the test
938(7)
Elements #4(a) and #4(b): Causation and remoteness
945(1)
Defences
946(7)
Act of God
947(1)
Act of vis major
948(1)
Act of a stranger
948(3)
Consent (including common benefit)
951(1)
Statutory authorisation
952(1)
Volenti/contributory negligence
952(1)
Miscellaneous
953(6)
Relationship with other actions
953(4)
Alternative views
957(2)
Remedies
959(1)
Escape of fire: Statutory regime
959(6)
Part 1V Miscellaneous 965(52)
18 Vicarious liability
967(50)
Introduction
967(7)
The vicariously-liable employer: some general concepts
967(4)
The role of the wrongdoing employee in vicarious liability
971(3)
Rationales for vicarious liability
974(3)
Strict (no-fault) rationales
974(1)
Fault-based rationales
975(2)
The 'employment relationship' limb
977(18)
Employee or independent contractor?
977(9)
Is the employee on loan to another employer?
986(5)
Dual vicarious liability
991(4)
The 'in the course of employment' limb
995(13)
The relevant tests
995(4)
Some difficult scenarios
999(9)
Exceptional cases: an employer can be vicariously liable for the torts of its independent contractor
1008(9)
Ratification or authorisation
1009(1)
Negligent selection
1010(2)
Non-delegable duties of care
1012(3)
Borrowing employees from the independent contractor
1015(2)
Index 1017
Rachael Mulheron is a professor at the Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London, where she has taught since 2004. Her principal fields of academic research concern tort law and class actions jurisprudence. She publishes regularly in the field of tort-related litigation, and has regularly been nominated for the Drapers' Teaching Award during her tenure at Queen Mary. Professor Mulheron is a member of the Civil Justice Council of England and Wales and participates in working parties relating to collective actions, third party funding and contingency fee law reform.