Fault liability requires some basis to determine whether someone was negligent, i.e. at fault for the harm he caused. Briefly, that would require:
Duty
Breach of that duty
Proximate cause
Actual cause
Damages
For example, if you were in a car accident, the fact that you were speeding might violate the law, and it will come into play to establish whether you were responsible for the accident, but the speeding in and of itself does not mean you are the person who caused the accident and you will not be held responsible just because you were speeding.
Strict liability
Strict liability is the principle which evolved from case of Rylands v Fletcher in the year 1868. This principle clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damages. This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the person keeping it and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable.
Essentials Of Strict Liability
Dangerous Thing
This simply means that the defendant will be liable for the damages only when the thing that escaped from his premises was a dangerous thing. The word ‘dangerous’ here implies that it is likely to do any sort of mischief if it escapes from the land of the defendant. In the case studied above, the dangerous thing was the collected water in the reservoir on Fletcher’s land. The rule specifies that things like gas, electricity, explosives, flag pole, noxious fumes, vibrations, yew trees, sewage and even rusty wires can also be termed as dangerous if escapes from the premises of the owner.
Escape
It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant. It should not be within the reach of the defendant after its escape. For example, if the poisonous Plants growing on the defendant’s land escapes and enters the plaintiff’s land and is then eaten up by the cattle on the plaintiff’s land, the defendant is liable for the damages caused to the cattle of the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the plaintiff’s cattle themselves enter the land of the defendant and eat the poisonous plants and die, the defendant will not be liable since there was no escape of his property. The case of Read v Lyons & co. shows that the defendant is not liable if there is no escape. In this case, the plaintiff, Read was an employee in the defendant’s ammunition factory. While she was working in the premises of the defendant, a shell exploded and the plaintiff was severely injured. The defendant could not be held negligent since there was no negligence on his part. Even the rule of Rylands vs. Fletcher didn’t apply here since the dangerous thing, the shell, had not escaped from the premises of the defendant. Thus, Lyons & co. was not held liable whereas in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher, the dangerous thing, the water had escaped from the defendant’s premises. In the case of Ponting vs. Noakes, the claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land and there had therefore been no escape.
Non-Natural Use Of Land
In the landmark case, the water collected constituted the non-natural use of land. Keeping water for domestic purposes is natural use but keeping water for use in the mill is non-natural use of land. For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community.[iv] Electric wiring in the house, electric wiring in the shops, supply of gas in gas pipes in a dwelling house and water installation in a house are other examples of the natural use of land. In the case of Sochacki vs. Sas, the defendant was a lodger in the claimant’s house. He lit an open fire in his room and then went out. Unfortunately a spark jumped from the fire and set the room alight. The fire spread to the rest of the house and the claimant brought an action against the defendant based on liability arising under Rylands v Fletcher. It was held that the defendant was not liable. Whilst the fire was likely to do mischief if it escaped, the use of an open fire in the claimant’s fireplace was not considered a non-natural use of land.[v] This case clearly explains the conditions when the use of the land by the defendant can be described as non-natural use and when not.
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. There are four steps in proving negligence. The plaintiff must prove:
That there is a duty in the circumstances to take care duty of care
that the behaviour or inaction of the defendant in the circumstances did not meet the standard of care which a reasonable person would meet in the circumstances (breach of duty)
that the plaintiff has suffered injury or loss which a reasonable person in the circumstances could have been expected to foresee (damage)
that the damage was caused by the breach of duty (causation).
The standard of care for a Health professional is that expected of the reasonably competent practitioner of that profession. The actions of the health professional will be compared with the standard. The court, not the professional, sets the standard, so even if a particular practice is common or accepted by other practitioners, it may still be negligent. Negligence can occur in any aspect of professional practice, whether history taking, advice, examination, testing or failing to test, reporting and acting on results of tests, or treatment. The standard is one of reasonable care, not of perfection. The court will decide having regard to all the circumstances whether the health professional has been negligent. Negligence is different from mistake or error of judgment. The fact that a risk of treatment eventuated, or that a desired medical outcome was not achieved, does not necessarily establish negligence.
A practical effect of this test is that if a person chooses to have (or through an emergency, is forced to have) a general practitioner perform surgery or administer general anaesthetic, then the person cannot expect the degree of skill of a specialist surgeon or anaesthetist. However, if the general practitioner holds himself or herself out as having special skill in surgery or anaesthetics, then the patient may be entitled to expect specialist skill.
,
Negligence is a tort, or a civil wrong, that occurs when someone fails to use reasonable care and causes harm to another person. To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered actual damages.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a person or entity responsible for the damages caused by their product or activity, even if they were not negligent. Strict liability is often applied to products that are defective or dangerous, such as cars or toys.
Product liability is a type of strict liability that holds manufacturers and sellers responsible for the injuries caused by their products. To prove product liability, the plaintiff must show that the product was defective, that the defect caused their injuries, and that the defect was caused by the manufacturer’s or seller’s negligence.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one person or entity responsible for the actions of another person or entity. Vicarious liability is often applied to employers, who can be held responsible for the torts committed by their employees while they are on the job.
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to prove negligence without having to prove the specific act that caused their injuries. Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself,” and it is used in cases where the plaintiff’s injuries are so unusual that it is likely that they were caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partially at fault for their own injuries. Under comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s damages are reduced by their Percentage of fault. For example, if the plaintiff was 20% at fault for their injuries, their damages would be reduced by 20%.
Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if they were even slightly at fault for their own injuries. Contributory negligence is a harsh doctrine, and it has been replaced by comparative negligence in most jurisdictions.
Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine that bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if they voluntarily assumed the risk of being injured. Assumption of risk is often used in cases where the plaintiff knew or should have known that they were in danger.
Negligence, strict liability, product liability, vicarious liability, res ipsa loquitur, comparative negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk are all important legal doctrines that can affect your rights if you are injured. If you have been injured, it is important to speak with an attorney to discuss your legal Options.
What is negligence?
Negligence is a legal term that refers to a failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation. Negligence can result in harm to others, and those who are injured as a result of negligence may be able to file a lawsuit against the person or entity who was negligent.
There are four elements that must be proven in order to establish negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.
Duty: The defendant must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. This duty can arise from a number of sources, including contract, tort, or statute.
Breach of duty: The defendant must have breached the duty of care that they owed to the plaintiff. This means that the defendant must have failed to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.
Causation: The defendant’s breach of duty must have caused the plaintiff’s injuries. This means that the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred if the defendant had not breached their duty of care.
Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence. These damages can be economic, such as medical bills and lost wages, or non-economic, such as pain and suffering.
What are some examples of negligence?
Some examples of negligence include:
A driver who fails to stop at a red Light and hits another car.
A doctor who fails to diagnose a patient’s illness and the patient dies as a result.
A construction company that fails to properly secure a building site and a worker falls and is injured.
What are the consequences of negligence?
If a person is found to be negligent, they may be held liable for the damages that they caused. This means that they may be required to pay the plaintiff’s medical bills, lost wages, and other damages. In some cases, the defendant may also be required to pay punitive damages, which are intended to punish the defendant for their negligence.
What are some defenses to negligence?
There are a number of defenses that can be raised to a claim of negligence. Some common defenses include:
Assumption of risk: The plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of being injured.
Contributory negligence: The plaintiff was also negligent and their negligence contributed to their injuries.
Comparative negligence: The plaintiff was negligent, but the defendant’s negligence was greater. In this case, the plaintiff’s damages may be reduced by their percentage of negligence.
Last clear chance: The defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident and failed to do so.
What is strict liability?
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a person or entity liable for damages caused by their actions, even if they were not negligent. Strict liability is often applied to cases involving dangerous activities or products.
What are some examples of strict liability?
Some examples of strict liability include:
The owner of a dog that bites someone.
The manufacturer of a defective product that injures someone.
The operator of a nuclear power plant that releases radiation that causes injuries.
What are the consequences of strict liability?
If a person or entity is found to be strictly liable, they may be held liable for the damages that they caused, even if they were not negligent. This means that they may be required to pay the plaintiff’s medical bills, lost wages, and other damages, even if they took all reasonable precautions to prevent the accident.
Which of the following is not a type of liability? (a) Strict liability (b) Vicarious liability (c) Negligence (d) Liability based on fault
Strict liability is based on the idea that: (a) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they did not intend to cause harm. (b) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were not negligent. (c) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were not at fault. (d) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were not the only cause of the harm.
Vicarious liability is based on the idea that: (a) The employer should be held responsible for the actions of their employees, even if the employer did not know about the employee’s actions. (b) The parent should be held responsible for the actions of their children, even if the parent did not know about the child’s actions. (c) The owner should be held responsible for the actions of their animals, even if the owner did not know about the animal’s actions. (d) All of the above.
Negligence is based on the idea that: (a) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they did not intend to cause harm. (b) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were not negligent. (c) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were not at fault. (d) The defendant should be held responsible for their actions, even if they were not the only cause of the harm.
In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that: (a) The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. (b) The defendant breached that duty of care. (c) The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty. (d) All of the above.
Damages are: (a) A monetary award that is given to the plaintiff to compensate them for their losses. (b) A punishment that is given to the defendant for their wrongdoing. (c) Both a monetary award and a punishment. (d) Neither a monetary award nor a punishment.
Punitive damages are: (a) A monetary award that is given to the plaintiff to compensate them for their losses. (b) A punishment that is given to the defendant for their wrongdoing. (c) Both a monetary award and a punishment. (d) Neither a monetary award nor a punishment.
In order to recover punitive damages, the plaintiff must show that: (a) The defendant acted with malice. (b) The defendant acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. (c) The defendant’s actions were outrageous. (d) All of the above.
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that: (a) Allows the plaintiff to infer negligence from the fact that the injury would not have occurred in the absence of negligence. (b) Allows the plaintiff to recover damages even if they cannot prove that the defendant was negligent. (c) Both (a) and (b). (d) Neither (a) nor (b).
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that: (a) Reduces the plaintiff’s damages by the percentage of fault that the plaintiff bears for the injury. (b) Bars the plaintiff from recovering damages if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault for the injury. (c) Both (a) and (b). (d) Neither (a) nor (b).