Fault liablility

meaning of fault

1 of 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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