Engineer in Society

Assignment 3
E/19/167
Jayawardena H.D.N.S.

1. What is Tort?

A tort is a legal term for a civil wrong or harm caused by one party to
another. Tort law allows individuals to seek compensation for injuries or
damages resulting from negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or strict
liability.

2. Tort is a civil wrong but all civil wrongs are not torts. Explain.

The statement "Tort is a civil wrong but all civil wrongs are not torts"
highlights that torts are a subset of civil wrongs within the broader field of
civil law. A tort is a specific type of civil wrong where one party's actions
lead to harm or injury to another party, typically due to negligence,
intentional misconduct, or strict liability. To establish a tort claim, specific
legal elements like duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages
must be proven. In contrast, not all civil wrongs fit the criteria of torts. For
instance, breaches of contract, which involve violations of contractual
agreements, are considered civil wrongs but fall under contract law,
governed by distinct legal principles. Similarly, family law matters like
divorce or child custody disputes are civil wrongs but are governed by
family law principles, separate from tort law. Therefore, while torts are civil
wrongs, they are set apart by their unique legal requirements, distinguishing
them from other civil wrongs.

3. What are the four elements of a tort?

Duty of Care: The defendant must have had a legal obligation to act
reasonably.
 Breach of Duty: The defendant must have failed to meet that duty of care.

Causation: The defendant's breach of duty must have directly caused harm to
the plaintiff.

Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered measurable harm or losses as a

result.

4. What is the time limit to take legal action in tort?

Six years

5. Explain the following in Tort case.

a. Plaintiff - The plaintiff is the party who brings the lawsuit, claiming
harm or injury.
b. Defendant - The defendant is the party being sued, accused of causing
the harm or injury.
6. What is Contributory negligence? Cite decided cases.

Contributory negligence is a legal concept in tort law where if a plaintiff's

own negligence contributed to their injury or damages, they may be barred
from recovering any compensation from the defendant. This doctrine is less
commonly used today, as many jurisdictions have adopted comparative
negligence systems that allow for partial recovery even if the plaintiff shares
some blame.
• The case of Davies vs Mann
The Plaintiff, Davies (Plaintiff), had his ass illegally tethered along a
public highway. The Defendant, Mann (Defendant), came along the
path at a quick pace and ran down the ass, killing it. The judge
instructed the jury that if the proximate cause of the injury was due to
the lack of proper conduct of the Defendant, an action is maintainable.

7. What is vicarious liability? Cite decided cases.

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party (typically an

employer) responsible for the wrongful actions or negligence of another
 party (usually an employee) while the latter is acting within the scope of
their employment. It allows a plaintiff to seek damages from the employer
for the actions of its employee, even if the employer was not directly
involved in the wrongdoing.
• The case of Broom vs Morgan (1953)
Ms. Broom was employed as the helper of a beer and wine
house, of which her husband, Mr. Broom, was employed as the
manager. Ms. Broom fell through a trap that her husband was
responsible for keeping closed, sustaining injuries as a result. Ms.
Broom sued for injuries due to the negligence of her husband, but the
courts held that, under statute, a husband cannot be held liable in tort
against his wife. She then sued the employer as vicariously
responsible for the negligence of her husband.

8. What is a defective product?

A defective product is one that has a flaw or issue, making it unsafe or unfit
for its intended use. These defects can arise during design, manufacturing, or
due to inadequate warnings or instructions. Injuries caused by defective
products may lead to legal actions under product liability laws.

9. What are three types of defects in Torts?

• Design Defects
• Manufacturing Defects
• Marketing Defects

10.Law of Tort largely developed through Judicial decisions. Explain.

The Law of Torts has largely developed through judicial decisions. The
common law system, the creation of precedents, the interpretation of
statutes, and the evolution of the law have all contributed to the development
of this area of law. The law of torts is based on the principles of common
law, which is mainly the English law of torts. The law of torts has its origin
in England but it is followed and adopted in the United States, Dominions of
British Commonwealth of Nations, and India.
 The common law system is a legal system that relies on judicial decisions
and precedents rather than codified statutes or legislation. In this system,
judges play a crucial role in shaping and developing the law through their
decisions in individual cases. Over time, these judicial decisions have
established legal principles and rules that form the basis of the law of torts.

The development of the law of torts through judicial decisions allows for
flexibility and adaptability to changing social, economic, and technological
circumstances. As new situations arise, courts can apply existing legal
principles to novel fact patterns or create new legal doctrines to address
emerging issues. This evolutionary process ensures that the law remains
relevant and responsive to societal needs.

In summary, the Law of Torts has largely developed through judicial

decisions, which have shaped and refined the legal principles governing civil
wrongs. The common law system, with its emphasis on precedents and
judicial interpretation, has been instrumental in this development.

11.What is the Neighbor principle? (Love your Neighbor/Not injure)

The Neighbor principle is a principle of English law that requires a person to

take reasonable care to avoid harming others. It was established in the case
of Donoghue v Stephenson (1932), where a woman sued a manufacturer
after finding a snail in her ginger beer. The principle is based on the idea that
individuals should not cause harm to others who could reasonably be
affected by their actions or omissions. It allows injured parties to make
claims in negligence by identifying the class of people to whom a duty may
be owed. According to Lord Atkin, a person's neighbor includes those who
are so closely and directly affected by their acts that they should reasonably
have them in contemplation when directing their mind to the acts or
omissions in question.

In summary, the Neighbor principle requires individuals to take reasonable

care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably cause injury to others.
It provides a basis for determining the boundaries of the duty of care in
 negligence cases and emphasizes the importance of considering the interests
of those who may be directly affected by one's actions.
12.What is Nervous shock/ cite decided case.

Nervous shock refers to the onset of a psychiatric illness caused by

witnessing the negligent action or its consequences by another person1. It is
important to note that for the purposes of succeeding in a legal suit, the
psychiatric illness must be diagnosed as more than grief or sorrow, i.e., an
actual psychiatric illness1.

• The case of Byrne v Southern and Western Railway Co.

The Byrne v Southern and Western Railway Co. case is a significant

case that paved the way for the recognition and evaluation of nervous
shock as a genuine psychiatric condition worthy of compensation. In
this case, which took place in Ireland, a superintendent of the telegraph
office at Limerick Junction railway station (plaintiff) sued the Great
Southern & Western Railway Company after a train broke through the
wall of the telegraph office. Compensation for nervous shock was
awarded.

13.What is the purpose of tort law?

The purpose of tort law is to provide relief to injured parties for harms
caused by others, to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, and
to deter others from committing harmful acts. Tort law also aims to promote
social welfare by encouraging individuals and businesses to act in a socially
responsible manner.

In summary, the purpose of tort law is to provide relief to injured parties,

impose liability on parties responsible for harm, deter harmful acts,
compensate victims for their losses and injuries, and promote social welfare.

14.What is the Decision of Priyani de Soyza Vs. Arza Kularatna case?

 The decision of Priyani de Soyza vs. Arza Kularatna case was that the
Supreme Court dismissed the special leave to appeal application of the
defendant, Priyani de Soyza, and upheld the judgment of the Court of
Appeal and the District Court, which found her
liable for medical negligence and awarded damages to the plaintiff, Arza
Kularatna. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had failed to exercise
reasonable care and skill in diagnosing and treating the plaintiff’s daughter,
who had a brain stem glioma, a fatal condition that was misdiagnosed as
rheumatic chorea. The Supreme Court also rejected the preliminary
objections raised by both parties regarding the compliance with the
Supreme Court Rules, 1990, and exercised its discretion to hear the merits of
the case.

15.Who is the expert witness?

An expert witness is an individual who possesses specialized knowledge,

skills, experience, or education in a particular field beyond that of an
average person. They are called upon to provide their expert opinion or
testimony in legal proceedings to assist the court or jury in understanding
complex or technical matters.

16.What is the decision of Stella Liback Vs. McDonalds case?

The decision of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds case was that the jury
awarded Liebeck $2.86 million in damages, which included $160,000 in
compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge
later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, making the total award
$640,000.

17.What is the decision of Heenbanda Vs. Navasivayam?

The decision of Heenbanda vs. Navasivayam case was that the Court of
Appeal affirmed the judgment of the District Court, which found
Heenbanda, the owner of a non-mischievous animal, liable for the damage
caused by his animal to Navasivayam’s property. The Court of Appeal held
that Heenbanda had failed to prove that he had taken all reasonable
precautions to prevent his animal from straying or that the damage was due
 to the fault of Navasivayam. The Court of Appeal also rejected Heenbanda’s
argument that the District Court had erred in awarding excessive damages to
Navasivayam.

18.What is the decision of Chinta devi Vs. Glacio ltd.?

The decision of Chinta Devi vs. Glacio Ltd. case was that the Court of
Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court, which awarded Chinta
Devi a sum of Rs. 250,000 as damages for the injuries she suffered due to
the explosion of a refrigerator manufactured by Glacio Ltd. The Court of
Appeal found that Glacio Ltd. was negligent in the design and manufacture
of the refrigerator, which had an unsuitable and unsafe burner for a kerosene
refrigerator.

19.What is the decision of Donoghue Vs. steevenson?

The decision of Donoghue v Stevenson was that the manufacturer of the

ginger beer, Mr Stevenson, owed a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue, the
consumer, and that he breached that duty by failing to ensure the product’s
safety. The House of Lords held that a duty of care could arise even in the
absence of a contractual relationship, as long as it was reasonably
foreseeable that negligence could cause harm to someone in the position of
the plaintiff.

20.What is the decision of Grant Vs. Australian Knitting Ltd.?

The decision of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills was that the manufacturer
of the woollen underwear, Australian Knitting Mills, and the retailer, John
Martin & Co, were both liable to Dr Grant for the dermatitis he suffered as a
result of wearing the underwear. The Privy Council held that there was a
breach of duty by both defendants, as they failed to take reasonable care to
ensure that the product was free from excess sulphite, which was a latent
defect that could not be detected by the consumer. The Privy Council also
held that the mere possibility of tampering by a third party did not negate the
duty of care, as there was sufficient evidence that the underwear reached Dr
Grant in the same condition as when it left the manufacturer.