Supreme Court Tort Claims Case

Introduction

The Supreme Court has been approached to pronounce itself on the instant case involving the above named Appellants and Respondents respectively in a series of tortious claims. The Appellants, in a case filed at the High court, had successfully argued their case. At the Court of Appeal, the Respondents also argued their appeal, which eventually overturned the High Court’s decision. Being aggrieved by the decision of the court of appeal, the Appellants have thus approached this Honorable court. They seek among others, an order for the restoration of the decision of the High Court on the ground that the Court of Appeal erred in law in overturning the judgment of the High Court on grounds that this judgement discusses later. This judgement will proceed to determine each element or ground of appeal and define specific claims forming the basis of this suit.

Issues for determination

This court has the benefit of having gone through both the decisions of the High court and the Court of appeal respectively and in its view; the following issues are up for determination.

a. Whether or not the Respondents owed duty of care to Joy in respect of her alleged condition;

b. Whether or not the Respondents owed a duty of care to the other respondents, and if yes, whether or not it was in breach thereof.

c. Whether or not the Respondents should have realized the danger of living so close to the factory, including the danger of industrial mishaps vis-à-vis the factory operating according to planning permission

Analysis and Determination

Whether or not the Respondents owed duty of care to Joy in respect of her alleged condition

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is the landmark case as far the tort of negligence is concerned. It created the tort of negligence. That for a suit in negligence to stand, the defendant must owe claimant (i) duty of care, (ii) the defendant must breach that duty and (iii) that failure by the defendant must cause damage to the claimant. Courts of law will always consider these elements when deciding whether a defendant has generally breached their standard of care. In Donoghue v Stevenson above, their Lordships laid down and set forth general rules when a duty of care would normally exist. Lord Atkins, for example, stated that a reasonable care must always be taken to avoid acts or omissions that a reasonable man can easily foresee that may cause injury to his neighbour. Their Lordships came up with the most celebrated element of tort law known as the neighbour principle and while defining who a neighbour is, Lord Atkins would then define a Neighbour as anyone or a person who is directly affected by your actions. His Lordship, Lord Atkins, biblically quoted the bible saying love your neighbour as you love yourself in support of the neighbour principle. Duty of care in torts of negligence generally helps people to be protected from the law of negligently inflicted harm.

The test of foreseeability is a tricky one and does not involves what the defendant can actually foresee but what a reasonable person would have been expected or ought to foresee. The duty of care is premised on reasonable foreseeability since no liability will arise in its absence. It is a question of law and in standard cases such as manufacturers of defective goods and motor accidents, the foreseeability of harm or injury where there is lack of care; it is clear in the circumstances, with the backing of precedents that it is not an issue. The doctrine or the principle of the duty of care, legal concept dictates the circumstances in which a party will normally be liable to another in negligence. The main factors to consider whether a person or an organisation owes duty of care includes Proximity, reasonable foreseeability and fair just. Proximity is the closeness or the relationship between the parties involved and are of three types which includes physical, blood and legal. Legal proximity is when one is legally bound to the other. Physical proximity refers to people around us and blood proximity is when the parties involved come from the same family. The claims in this suit are tortious in nature. First, there is the tort of negligence. Negligence refers to a civil wrong tort causing harm to another person or to property as the result of an action or an omission to provide a proper and reasonable level of care. The issue of negligence is so pervasive to the extent of transforming other torts, as the strict liability tort of trespass such that fault is necessary. In the case of Stanley v Powell [1891] 1 QB 86, it was held that where intent is lacking and negligence is in the negative, the plaintiff cannot recover damages whether s/he framed the action in trespass or suit. Thus, it has been a unifying factor in the law of tort requiring fault before liability can be imposed and where no blame can be traced or founded, no negligence can be claimed.

Finally, the case of Caparo v Dickman laid down the three tests to be considered in order to determine whether a duty of care exists. That for a duty of care to suffice, three questions need to be answered:

a) Was it reasonably foreseeable that conduct, acts or omissions were likely to cause harm to a category of persons whom the plaintiff belonged to?

b) Did a relationship of proximity or neighbourhood exist between the plaintiff and the defendant?

c) Is it fair, just and reasonable that the law imposes duty of care for the plaintiff’s benefit?

This court has considered the above decisions and wishes to pronounce itself clearly on the first ground as to whether or not the Respondents owed a duty of care to Joy’s alleged condition. From the facts of the case, Joy owned a popular restaurant around the Respondents’ company that was gutted down by the fire and as a result, Joy, who was not around at that time suffers from anxiety Neurosis as a result of the news of her restaurant being destroyed by the fire. From the above discussion on the tort of negligence and duty of care, negligence involves:

A duty of care that must be owed to a person

A breach of that duty through one’s act or omission which must fail to reach the standard of reasonable care

Causation in that the breach must have caused the damage to another person.

Damage suffered must be legally recognizable and should have links with the breach of duty.

Lord Atkin said that a neighbour is anyone who is affected by our acts directly and therefore, one must owe a duty of care to his or her neighbour. In the instant case, Joy was a neighbour to the Respondents and as such, they owed her a duty of care. Secondly, the duty of care includes but is not limited to ensuring that your neighbour’s property does not get affected or destroyed from an act or omission that a reasonable man ought to have foreseen. In the instant case, fire destroyed Joy’s Restaurant, a clear indication that the duty of care has been breached. As a result of the breach, Joy has suffered anxiety neurosis. One thing is clear from the foregoing that Joy would not have suffered anxiety neurosis were it not for the fire destroying her restaurant. The above scenario clearly reflects the age-old decision in Caparo above and certifies the four questions. For the avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of everyone else, this court vacates the decision of the court of appeal and in its place restores the decision of the High court and finds that the Respondents in deed owed a duty of care as far as Joy’s alleged condition is concerned. This Court orders accordingly.

Whether or not the Respondents owed a duty of care to the other respondents, and if yes, whether or not it was in breach thereof.

The Respondents at the court of appeal successfully argued that although it owed a duty of care to the other respondents, it was not in breach of that duty as there was no proof that the fire occurred because of any fault on its part; and that the fire was probably due to third-party sabotage. For the record, the other Respondents includes Mark, a regular customer of Petrochem, who had left his van overnight at the premises for on-loading of chemicals and the fire destroyed the van. Raymond, who suffers from asthma and lives in a house about a quarter of a mile from the factory, following the incident, his condition has deteriorated considerably. Because of this, he had to spend £5000 on the installation of special air purification system in his home. Sol, a part-time columnist for Daily Echo, the local newspaper, owns a fruit farm nearby where he cultivates exotic tropical plants. The toxic smoke from the fire killed all the tropical plants, although the local ones survived. First, the rule and principle in the case of Rylands v Fletcher on strict liability is very clear. The rule states that a person who, for his own benefit, allows a dangerous element or substance on their land which, if it escapes and damages a neighbour’s property, is liable on a strict liability and it is immaterial to prove negligence on the part of the landowner from which the dangerous substance escaped. In tort, strict liability involves imposition of liability on a party without a finding or determination of fault such as negligence on his part. The claimant only needs to prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible for its occurrence. The law imposes strict liability to situations it considers inherently dangerous.

Justice Blackburn stated that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes or benefits brings on his land or premises and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief or harm if it so escapes, must keep it in at his risk, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie liable for all damages which is the natural consequence or cause of its escape. Justice Robertson while agreeing with Justice Blackburn, in the case of Eastern & South African Railway, opined that the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher subjects the owner who uses property for other purposes other than those, which are natural to very high liability. In Curtis v Lutes ,the Ontario Supreme Court applied the rule in Ryland successfully and said that one who sets a fire and which fire spreads to his neighbour's land and does damage or harm may be held liable under the rule of absolute or strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher

In Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 20th Edition, the authors quotes Lord Cairns concurrent judgment but introduced an element of flexibility restricting the rule to situations where the defendant made a non-natural use of the land. That strict liability in the limited or narrow sense renders it unnecessary for claimant to prove negligence in the defendant or his agents and or servants. That although it might once have developed as a separate branch of the law, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is now a reality. As regards the Occupiers’ Liability, the general rule is that a person who is in control of property or land must conduct themselves in a certain and specific manner to avoid injuring others. The law on occupiers’ liability has a statutory foundation. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, for example, covers in section 1(1) the duties that an occupier owes to lawful visitors. Section 2(2) specifically deals with relevant duties and states that an occupier must take such care in all circumstances to reasonably see and ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe and secure in using the premises for the purposes for which he is permitted or invited by the occupier to be there.

This court has considered the above precedents and statutes and thus proceeds to pronounce itself as follows. This court first takes judicial notice of the defenses available to the rule in Ryland, which includes but not limited to; i) an act of God, ii) Plaintiff’s consent, iii) statutory protection and iv) an act of a third party. The Respondents at the court of appeal had argued that this was an act of a third party and even though it owed the above named appellants duty of care, they were not liable for the breach of the said duty. It is obvious that Raymond who suffers from asthma is forced to incur extra expense to manage his condition because of fire incident. The escaping smoke from the company destroys Sol’s fruit farm, which is nearby. From the definition in Ryland’s case, a person, who for his own purpose brings to his land something dangerous, which is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, is prima facie liable. This court has considered both sides extensively and finds in favor of the appellants for whoever brings something to his premises, does so as to his own risks and that is the rule of strict liability.

As for Mark, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1957 is very clear, on who a lawful visitor is. This court has considered the circumstances surrounding Mark’s frequent visit to the second Respondent’s company and finds that Mark was a lawful visitor and thus deserved duty of care to both personal injury and property. His van that was destroyed was lawfully under the care of the occupier and thus the Respondents are liable for the damage caused. This court thus, for avoidance of doubt, vacates the decision of the court of appeal on ground two and in its place restores the decision of the High court orders accordingly.

Whether or not the Respondents should have realized the danger of living so close to the factory, including the danger of industrial mishaps vis-à-vis the factory operating according to planning permission

The Respondents maintained at the court of appeal that it operated its factory in accordance with its planning permission; and the claimants should have realised the danger of living so close to the factory, including the danger of industrial mishaps. The second Respondent also appealed the judgment on the ground that the article published by Sol was actionable as defamation. This court has again considered the two grounds extensively and regrets to differ sharply with the court of appeal. From the onset, this court is of the view that the Court of appeal erred in law by allowing the appeal on this ground. This court reiterates the decision in Rylands v Fletcher above where the court stated that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes or benefits brings on his land or premises and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief or harm if it so escapes, must keep it in at his risk, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie liable for all damages which is the natural consequence or cause of its escape.

Now that this incident affected a group of persons, then it constitutes public nuisance. Public nuisance primarily concerns with protecting the public unlike private nuisance, which only protects an individual. Public nuisance therefore is both a tort and a crime. In Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd, Romer LJ defined public nuisance as any act or omission which materially and substantially affects the convenience and reasonable comfort of life of a class of her Majesty’s subjects. In the instant case, the fire and the resulting smoke caused a lot of discomfort and inconvenienced a number of lives and properties. This court underscores the fact that individual casualties can as well pursue private nuisance to seek for damages owing to of injuries to self and properties. As regards defamation and without considering defences therein, this court underscores that defamation covers or deals with any statement that hurts or injures someone's reputation. The statement can be published in which case it is called libel. The statement can also be spoken and in that case it is called slander. Defamation is considered to be a tort. For a defamation suit to stand, the following elements are necessary; i) Someone made a statement; ii) The statement was published; iii) The statement caused you injury; iv) The statement was false; and v) The statement did not fall into a privileged category. Having analysed the two consolidated grounds, this court turns to determine whether the court of appeal justified the said grounds in upsetting High court’s decision. As to whether the court of appeal was justified in allowing the appeal on the ground that the Respondents operated according to planning permission and that the appellants ought to caution themselves of the danger of living around, this court finds that the court of appeal erred in law. This courts finds that the rule of strict liability is a fair and reasonable rule meant to protect society from acts or omissions of individuals and therefore such individuals must operate such dangerous companies at their own peril.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Tort Law and Negligence.

This court further finds that an act or omission affecting more than one individual amounts to public nuisance and must be treated as such. It further directs that individual who are culpable are criminals and must die by the same sword. That people around the company ought to caution themselves of the inherent danger from the company is regrettable and as such is untenable and neither here nor there. On matters defamation, the above elements which constitutes defamation were not satisfied for one, the publication did not mention any names specifically. Further, the statement did not cause any injury to the Respondents neither was it false. As such, this court is inclined to set aside the decision of the appeal court and restores the decision of the High court accordingly.

Conclusion

For avoidance of doubt this Honourable court, having considered all the grounds for appeal extensively, orders as follows;

a. Ground number one of the appeal is hereby allowed and the decision of the court of appeal of appeal is vacated and the same is replaced by an earlier decision of High court

b. Ground number two is also allowed and the order of the High court is hereby restored

c. Ground number three as consolidated with ground four of the appeal are also granted restoring the order of the High court.

Refrences

Bermingham, V., & Brennan, C. (2018). Tort law directions. Oxford University Press.

Cornford, T. (2016). Towards a public law of tort. Routledge.

Fulbrook, J. (2017). Outdoor activities, negligence and the law. Routledge.

Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress. Aspen Publishers.

Hudson, A. (2017). The law on financial derivatives (No. 6). Sweet and Maxwell Ltd..

Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G., & Harder, S. (2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.

Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2017). Business law today: The essentials. Cengage learning.

Wright, J. (2017). Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goldberg, J. C. (2018). History, Theory, and Tort: Four Theses. Journal of Tort Law, 11(1), 17-37.

Ben-Shahar, O., & Porat, A. (2016). Personalizing Negligence Law. NYUL Rev., 91, 627.

Hogg, M. A. (2016). Liability for unknown risks: a Common Law perspective. Journal of European Tort Law, 7(2), 113-142.

Keating, G. C. (2017). Response to Fox: Impaired Conditions, Frustrated Expectations, and the Law of Torts. Colum. L. Rev. Online, 117, 212.

Robbennolt, J. K., & Hans, V. P. (2016). The psychology of tort law. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 249-274). Springer, Cham.