TORT LAW IN THE LIGHT OF DORSET YACHT CO. LTD

Tort Law in the light of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004

Tort Law in the light of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004

In Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 Lord Diplock had stated that judicial development of negligence law should proceed with regards seeking first to identify the relevant characteristics that were common to the kinds of conduct and relationship between the parties, related to the case for decision and the kinds of conduct and relationships that had been held in previous decisions to give rise to a duty of care. The class of persons to whom a duty of care might be owed in the situation of Dorset Yacht. The risk of sustained damage from the tortious acts of criminal was shared with regards the public at large.

The manner of causing loss to another may provide a course of action under the Tort of Negligence. However, careless but non-deliberate acts causing purely financial loss unrelated to physical injury or damage to tangible assets are not normally covered with regards the Law of Torts although it may be protected in those cases where it is deliberately caused with regards someone.

Unless a plaintiff suffers an invasion of a recognised interest he cannot claim compensation for his losses under the Law of Tort. This is summed up with regards the phrase Damnum absque inuria' or loss without legal injury. Thus, the Tort of Negligence only extends to the protection of a limited sphere of interests.

The mental element in torts - Different torts depend upon different mental elements on the part of the defendant. This makes it difficult to state any general basis for liability in the law of torts.

Intention

The torts of assault, false imprisonment and deceit require that the defendant acted intentionally. The defendant must have been aware of the consequences of his act and he must have desired those consequences. Though recklessness is tantamount to intention in the law of torts. A defendant will be said to be reckless if he is aware of the risks inherent in what he is doing and while not actually wanting to injure the plaintiff is totally indifferent to the possibility that he could well injure him.

Negligence governs liability in the many cases but is distinct from the Tort of Negligence. A defendant will be said to have been negligent in law if he failed to take reasonable care to guard against the likely consequences of his acts or omissions. The test adopted to determine whether reasonable care has been taken is an objective one based on what a hypothetical reasonable man would have done.

Strict liability

Some torts are based upon what is termed strict liability, that is to say that a defendant will be held liable for the consequences of his actions even if he is neither negligent nor reckless and does not intend the consequences of his ...