Strict liability is when a crime is committed but mens rea does not need to be proven, a person may be liable even if they are not at fault, or tried their best to be on the right side of the law. Starting off in the 1800, strict liability was established to improve safety in factories and businesses. Nowadays strict liability is mainly focused on Health and safety offences and driving offences. An offence is strict liable if it meets any of the following requirements; the crime is regulatory, not a severe crime or the offence is of a social concern, if the wording of the act indicates strict liability or the crime carries a minor penalty. If the crime is regulatory, then strict liability can be justified, from health and safety to pollution to the sale of damaged goods. This is shown in Gammon Ltd v Attorney-General , where a builder ignored plans while constructing a building, which is not only an offence to differ from plans but the potential to be a health and safety hazard. Strict liability in this case allows protection of the public to rise. People are forced to ensure health and safety are up to code if they fear they can be easily convicted. …show more content…
His appeal was dismissed as it was a strict liability offence, mens rea did not need to be proven, and Lord Salmon declared that if the appeal had succeeded then factory owners would be less inclined to do all in their power to prevent pollution and the rivers would get even dirtier, and he is quite right, This will not only increases public health but also contributes greatly to helping the
In the Kamloops v. Nielson case, a house being built did not pass the inspection by the city and construction was stopped, however the builder ignored the requests and continued to build the home without passing the necessary requirements for safety. The inspector also chose not to follow-up on the builder and allowed him to build the house without proper approval. The house was then sold to a couple that was unaware of the history of the home, and once problems arose with the foundation, they sued the municipality and the vendor. Similar to the Anns v. Merton case, this case questioned whether duty of care could be expanded to municipalities, and the presiding judge used the Anns test in determining duty of care.
...being held accountable, the city officials themselves were also held accountable because of improper safety regulations. Showing that the city itself should be at fault for not enforcing safety regulations for such things as fire escapes, that were not in working order. These unprecedented circumstances just lay down the blueprint for what is now the correct way to set regulations for industrial factory conditions.
Engineers, contractors, and other businesses must be mindful of and knowledgeable of their legal obligations when performing their occupation or supplying a product. Negligence in the design or construction of a product that results in damage or bodily harm, or could result in damage or bodily harm, can result in liability for economic loss under Canadian Tort law. Engineers, architects, and contractors need to be respectful of their duty of care to ensure their product is precisely produced with no danger of negligence.
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse []. This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee [] and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
Strict Liability in Tort is the tort that manufacturers are strictly liable for defective products. Questions that may asked by the court are: Was the product defective? Did the defect create an unreasonably dangerous product or instrumentality? Was the defect a proximate cause or substantial factor of the injury? Did the injury cause damages?
Strict liability arises in the animal context when the animal at issue is either a wild animal or a domestic animal with a known vicious propensity. This principle is the origin of the well-known “one bite” rule for dogs. Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Under a rule of strict liability, proof of causation is a necessary condition for liability. The early common law distinguished between wild and domesticated animals for purposes of imposing liability on their owners. Owners of fierce or wild animals were absolutely liable for harm caused to others. However, owners of domesticated animals, such as dogs, were liable only if they had scienter; that is, the owners were liable only if they knew of the animal’s dangerous or mischievous propensities. Tort law has traditionally sought to balance the “usefulness” of an animal with the risk it represents to the public. Common law torts is a legal structure that seek to allocate risk among the members of society; the more valuable a particular activity to society, the more willing is the society, through its legal rules, to shift risk of the activity to others.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
The liability for negligent misstatement may arise from pure economic loss. According to Steele (2010), ‘Economic losses will be regarded as “pure” if they do not flow from any personal injury to the claimant nor from physical damage to his or her property’. The boundaries between “pure” economic loss and the loss which is “consequential” from damage were established by the Court
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.
(Wong 2010). The law, in this case, defines a defect as "unreasonably dangerous to the user. " The extension of the product manufacturer liability in the recent years is perhaps the most outstanding changes were seen in the Anglo - American legal systems (McWilliams & Smith