Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
/
Lecture IV: Tort Liability
Table of Contents
Business Organizations:
The Basic forms of business organizations worldwide
Tort Liability:
Overview Fundamentals of Tort Law The Engineers standard of care Development of Tort Law Strict Liability Vicarious Liability Concurrent Tortfeasors Other relevant torts
Tort Liability
Tort Liability:
Overview Fundamentals of Tort Law The Engineers standard of care Development of Tort Law Strict Liability Vicarious Liability Concurrent Tortfeasors Other relevant torts
Tort Liability
Tort Background and Definition: The term has become more familiar in the engineering community as a result of the increasing frequence of claims against professionals
Tort Liability may arise from automobile accidents; transportation of hazardous cargoes; from the sale of
Concurrent Liability)
The fundamental purpose of Tort Law is to compensate the victims of torts. Punishment of negligent wrongdoers is not a purpose of tort law. If the circumstances of the
If any of the essential aspects above is not substantiated to the satisfaction of the court the
DEVELOPMENT OF TORTLAW
Hedley Byrne is probably the most significant case to date, as far as professionals are concerned generally. In Hedley Byrne, the plaintiffs were advertising agents who asked their bankers to inquire into the credit rating of a company with which the plaintiffs had business dealings.
DEVELOPMENT OF TORTLAW
STRICT LIABILITY
Strict Liability
The discussion of torts to this point has emphasized the concept of fault; we have concentrated on cases where the conduct of the party that caused the injury was unsatisfactory in terms of duty owed. However, our legislators have sometimes found the application of the concept of fault inadequate for the purpose of compensating injured parties. For example, workers compensation legislation recognize that fault is not necessary if compensation is to be provided. All employers are expected to make contribution on behalf of employees and if an employee negligibly injures himself or herself, compensation is provided according to provincial workers compensation legislation.
Products liability in North America: In the United States, a manufacturer may be strict liable for any damage that results from the use of the product even though the manufacturer was not negligent in producing it. Canadian products liability laws has not yet adopted this strict liability concept, but the law appears to be developing in that direction.
VARIOUS LIABILITY
Vicarious Liability
Our courts have long recognized the concept that the employer is vicariously liable for the negligent performance of an employee. If an employer commits a tort for the
Damage caused. This concept may appear onerous as far as the employer is
concerned, but it is consistent with the basic premise of tort law; its purpose is to Compensate the injured party. The employer provides compensation because it is presumed that the employer is in a better financial position than the employee. In 1972, Englands Court of Appeal decided the case of Dutton v. Regis United Building Co. Ltd. Foundations laid by the builder of a house were discovered to be inadequate to carry the load of the building, and damage resulted. The house had been built on a rubbish deposit and the foundations should have been deeper to withstand the pressure of settling.
VARIOUS LIABILITY
CONCURRENT TORTFEASORS
Concurrent Tortfeasors
At times, torts concur to produce the same damage. It is possible for more than one party to be liable in such a tort action. The defendants are said to be concurrent tortfeasors. An example is the 1979 decision of the British Colombia Court of Appeal in Corporation of District of Survey v. Carol-Hatch et al. An architect had designed a new police station, and had engaged a firm of engineers to perform structural design services. The building eventually underwent extensive structural change because of settlement problems. The problems could have been avoided had proper soils tests been conducted. After examining two shallow test pits, the engineers had recommended to the architect that deep soils tests to be taken. But the architect had rejected the recommendation, and the engineers had submitted a soils report to the owner on the basis of a superficial examination of the shallow test pits only. Both the architect and the engineers were held liable to the owner.
CONCURRENT TORTFEASORS
Thank-You slide
Thank You !