- Created by: Eleanpr Hughes
- Created on: 13-06-10 12:49
meaning of fault
- General presumption: "no liablility" without proof of fault
- blame or responsibility for something done wrong
- someone not to blame > not liable (civil law), not guilty (criminal law)
1 of 8
relationship between law and morality - AR
- Involuntary act (Hill v Baxter)
- Omission only liable if duty to act (Pitwood)
- must be factual link between act/omission and end result > missing break in chain R.v Williams and Davis (remove fault lead to acquital)
2 of 8
relationship between fault and liability (MR)
- all serious crimes require state of mind > absence complete defence?
- types of MR relate to seriousness> intention R v. Woolin, less serious crimes (recklessness) R v. Savage. intention more blameworthy than recklessness
- categorising crimes: murder more serious than manslaughter (requirment of intent)
- Rv Mandair someone can be conicted of a "lesser" offence (s20) when conicted of s18
- s20 ^ s47 (greater leel of harm - actual rather than grevious - Chan Fook
- state of mind/level of harm - reflect fault/blame - GBH more than ABH
- sentencing: mandatory life sentence (murder) > Home Secretary can fix tariffs (show leel of fault) - aggravating and mitigating factors (Ruby)
- Defences: automatism (Burns v Biddler), consent (R v. Slingsbury), others/mistake (R v. Williams) > complete defences so will be acquited. Partial defence (fault removed through DR guilty lesser offence > murder > manslaughter (Ahluwalia), specific intent crime: proof of voluntary intoxication remove ability of MR alterante recklessness (Lipman)
3 of 8
weak relationship - criminal law
- Strict liability: contary to no liablility without presumption of fault, lack of MR of defence > defence can be commited by just AR, mantain highstanding and public safety e.g. speeding, will be at fault even if did not forsee effects (Smedly v Breed)
- Thin skull rule: may be liable for unforseeable injuries (Ruby) > physical weakness punish D for suffering not entirely his fault. AR outweigh MR
- Transferred malice (Latimer) > convicted of act against B even if only intend to hurt A (someone at fault in realtion to unintended victim despite haing no MR against this person)
- legal causation (significant contribution test) : Chesire > partly blame but can be fault of others > person who made significant contribution could be only one convicted?
4 of 8
relationship between fault and liability civil law
- negligence: exlplain principles. duty of care to exist need no fault but breach below "standard of reasonabless" > fault, Bolton V Stone (absense of fault = no breach), resulting damage (causation) > fault, Wagon Mound principles (remotness of damage - L. causation - liable for X not Y
- Occupiers liablity - acts 1957 and 1984 - British railways v Herrington (1972) - standard of care to trespasser less than lawful visitor normally reasonable efforts to keep them out but if they know that trespasser in imminent peril, ordinary humanity require further steps
- statutary torts: Consumer porotection Act 1957 and Animals Act 1971 (largely no fault approach)
- semi-strict liablility torts: Rylands v Feletcher - not concerned with blmae but as regards escape > only lianle for damage that is REASONABLY forseeable + specific defences = fault element
- vicarious liabiliity > employers liability for torts commited by employees > unreliant on proof of fault. D may be liable eben if take all reasonable steps. requirments: actual employee, on independant contractor and acting in "course of his employment"
5 of 8
Should fault be an essential part of English law?
- advantages of strict liability
- many such offences realte to business's - if run properly no AR
- take risk to make profit ought to be liable if risk causes problema to others?
- certain activities prohbited for public good > so long as penalty not severe > interests of public should outweigh conviction of those not morally at fault
- impossible for guilt coniction if have to prove knowledge (esp company)
- low fault approach: tort: those who choose potentially harmful activities can easier ensure liablility against 3rd parties than individuals - unknown risk!!!
- assit injured party - no need to prove fault
- Strict liabilty outcome more predictable > reduce liklihood of dealys and legal coststhrough ptotracted litigation
6 of 8
disadvantages of strict liability approach
- wrong to punish someone not morally to blame esp when reasonable care
- serve no useful point as can not change conduct
- difficulty in proving knowledge > circumvented by reersing burden of proof e.g. onus on D to prove a defence rather than P to disprove it
- does not raise standards
- fault based liability tort: injuries - vicissitudes of life? > should not look for blame?
- no moral justification
- does not promote safter society as D who has been carefull can not alter their conduct
- knowlege?! = reverese burden of proos and extend res ipsa loquitar (facts speak for themselves)
- compensating bictims overiding objective - fairer compensation public fund which all tax payers contribute to
7 of 8
conclusion - extent of relationship?
- close relationship > every element criminal law aspect of fault and even strict liability offences contain aspect (D commited guilty act) - examples
- few exceptions civil - vicarious liability
- courts view = Sweet v Parsely - if parliament want to to oppose strict liability must be VERY clear. absense of direction from Parliament: Courts will always look for proos of fault AR and MR > fault very important in finding guilt in criminal law
- strict liabilty more justification in Civil Law > usually only money at risk not personal reputation, liberty, livlihood so could argue civil law less dependant on proof of fault.
- despite potential unfairness = can achieve great public benefit e.g. in pollution matters
8 of 8