The Tort Law: The Law Of Tort Law

The law of torts is the law regarding to torts and tortfeasors, which means people who commit torts.[ Nicholas J McBride & Roderick Bagshaw.2005.2nd edition.Tort Law.p.15]Tort covers subjects such as negligence, trespass, defamation, and nuisance.The purpose of the law of torts is to allocate or prevent losses that are bound to occur in the society.[ W.V.H.Rogers.1984.Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort.14th Ed.London:Sweet & Maxwell.p.1] The dominant action in torts in negligence. According to Winfield and Jolowicz[ Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Ninth Edition.1971. p. 45], Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. Lord Wright [ Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. V. Mc Mullan,

The but-for test[ Robinson v Post office [1974] 2 All ER 737] is generally satisfactory if the plaintiff is suing only one or two defendants, if one of them may be vicariously liable for the other’s negligence. This test will not provide conclusive answers where there may be more than one party who is the cause of the damage sustained by the plaintiff, or if there are concurrent breaches of duty.[ McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008]

The second issue is causation in law[ Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560]. A defendant will only be liable if it is reasonably foreseeable[ Bradford v Ronbinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 ALL ER 267] that his conduct will result in some damage to the plaintiff[ Government of Malaysia & Ors v Jumat bin Mahmud & Anor]. This problem has been somewhat ‘solved’ through two tests, the direct consequence test and the reasonable foresight

Second, in intervening act of a third party[ Scott v Shepherd [1773] 2 Wm BI 892], the defendant will still be held liable[ Rouse v Squires [1973] QB 889] if the breach of his duty causes a third party to act which caused the damage. If however, the defendant’s breach of duty gives an opportunity to the third party to act which he does on his own, independently, this constitutes a novus actus interveniens[ Wright v Lodge [1993] 4 ALL ER 299] and the defendant will not be liable for the third party’s conduct. Lastly, intervening of a third party where if the plaintiff’s act, together with the breach of the defendant, cause the final damage[ Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority [1985] QB 1012], the plaintiff is usually said to be contributorily negligent which occurs when the injured person themselves is found to have contributed to the cause of their loss or injury. If the plaintiffs act causes the damage, then that act constitues a novus actus interveniens and is unreasonable.[ McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts ( Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER