‘Reasonably Foreseeable’ Victim Evidence

1. Davina

Davina charge prove that her abasement is medically-recognised (McLoughlin v. O’Brian (1983)) acquired by the blow and that she was a ‘reasonably foreseeable’ victim. She charge additionally appearance that her abrasion would be accountable in a being of reasonable backbone (Page v. Smith (1996)). Davina is a accessory victim (Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1992)) so charge authorize a abutting accord amid herself and Bertram, adjacency to the blow and that her abrasion came through afterimage or audition of it. Bertram is Davina’s brother; Davina heard the blow and abounding anon afterwards appropriately her affirmation should succeed,

Whitchester District Council

The cavern may aggregate a aperture of the Council’s assignment beneath area 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to advance ‘highways arguable at accessible expense’. However, area 58 provides a defence if the Council took reasonable affliction to ‘secure that the allotment of the highway… was not alarming to traffic’. Therefore, if the Council carries out approved analysis and makes appropriate aliment it will accept accomplished its duty.


Ethelred may be vicariously accountable for Conrad’s negligence, aback Conrad is an agent (Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968)) acting in the advance of employment; although Conrad had accomplished his deliveries, he was activity aback to the annex and appropriately not ‘on a antic of his own’ (Joel v. Morrison (1834)).


Conrad owed Bertram the recognised assignment amid alley users (Caparo v. Dickman (1990)) and charge ability the accepted of a analytic competent disciplinarian (Nettleship v. Weston (1971)). Conrad was ‘hurrying’ aback to the annex suggesting he was dispatch or active abominably decidedly aback he was clumsy to stop in time.

In a case involving assorted causes of injury, Bertram alone needs to appearance that a aperture materially contributed to the accident (Bonnington Castings Ltd v. Wardlaw (1956)). Running Bertram over with his lorry would account a analytic accountable (The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961)) absolute addition to his injuries which would not accept occurred ‘but for’ Conrad’s apathy (Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management (1969)).


Alphonse owed Bertram the recognised acknowledged assignment of affliction amid alley users (Caparo) and charge appearance the aforementioned accepted of affliction as a analytic competent and accomplished disciplinarian (Nettleship v. Weston). There is annihilation to advance that Alphonse was active abominably afore hitting the pothole. It is absurd that he will be accountable to Bertram.

It is acceptable that his burst wrist would be too alien for accountability to appear (Wagon Mound). Alphonse should accept been acquainted of the difficulties walking whilst cutting a close collar and taken added affliction on stairs.


By dispatch into the alley after looking, Bertram could be advised to be contributorily negligent. The actuality of a assignment of affliction is extraneous (Jones v. Livox (1952). If Bertram is begin to be contributorily behindhand any amercement will be bargain to the admeasurement that his carelessness acquired his injuries, because the about answerability of the parties.

(500 words)

2. Private nuisance

Private nuisance can be authentic as actionable arrest with use or amusement of land. The appellant charge be the backer (Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)) and the arrest charge be an absurd accompaniment of diplomacy causing accident or claimed ache as a result.

Lordly is the landowner. Common bonfires will aggregate a accompaniment of affairs. In because whether this is unreasonable, the appearance of the neighbourhood will be advised (St Helens Smelting Co v. Tipping (1865)) in affiliation to the amount and blazon of arrest that could be accepted in that locality. It is acceptable that common afire of tyres on apple outskirts would be unreasonable. Lordly has been clumsy to adore his garden because of the smell; aroma is recognised as a recognised chic of nuisance (Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd (1996)). Sumpoil would be accountable as the architect of the nuisance.

Chip will not be able to accompany a affirmation for disruption to his adaptable buzz as he is not the landowner.

Public nuisance

Public nuisance can be authentic as nuisance which materially affects the reasonable abundance and accessibility of a chic of Her Majesty’s capacity (A-G v. PYA Quarries Ltd (1957)). Alley users accept been captivated to aggregate a chic (Castle v. St Augustine’s Links (1922)). Moreover, the appellant charge accept suffered appropriate (particular) damage, which charge be altered in attributes or admeasurement from that suffered by the blow of the class. The smoke has abnormally afflicted afterimage for drivers and appropriately affects their accessibility Lordly has suffered added accident and could accordingly accompany a affirmation in accessible nuisance adjoin Sumpoil.


Section 3 of the Protection from Aggravation Act 1997 creates a approved abomination of harassment, annoyed if the actor pursues a advance of conduct (on at atomic two occasions (section 7(3)) that causes addition to acquaintance harassment. Such conduct can accommodate words (section 7(4)). Therefore, Chip’s common swearing at Sumpoil may accord acceleration to accountability for aggravation if it acquired Sumpoil to feel harassed, abashed or distressed.

Assault and battery

Battery is authentic as the advised absolute appliance of force to addition person. An advance is an act which causes the reasonable alarm of accident of a battery. Sumpoil absolved up to Chip accustomed a ample wrench.. If Chip analytic apprehended that Sumpoil was activity to hit him, again Sumpoil would be accountable for assault. Chip punching Sumpoil on the adenoids would aggregate a battery, and, if Sumpoil apprehended the punch, would additionally accord acceleration to an assault.

Interference with business

Lordly interfered with the accumulation of appurtenances to Sumpoil’s business and may be accountable for the abomination of interfering with business if he knew of the actuality of the arrangement and intend to baffle with its achievement (Merkur Island Shipping Corp v. Laughten(1983)) after acceptable justification, arch to an absolute aperture of contract, causing damage. However, it is not bright whether the delays in commitment constituted a aperture of arrangement or whether Sumpoil suffered consistent loss.

(500 words)

List of cases

A-G v. PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 1 All ER 894

Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310

Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management [1969] 1 QB 428

Bonnington Castings Ltd v. Wardlaw [1956] AC 613

Caparo v. Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568

Castle v. St Augustine’s Links (1922) 38 TLR 615

Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655

Joel v. Morrison (1834) 6 C & P 501

Jones v. Livox Quarries [1952] 2 QB 608

McLoughlin v. O’Brian [1983] AC 410

Merkur Island Shipping Corp v. Laughten[1983] 2 AC 570

Nettleship v. Weston [1971] 2 QB 691

Page v. Smith [1996] 1 AC 155

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 1 All ER 433

St Helens Smelting Co v. Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642

The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404

Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19


Howarth, DR and O’Sullivan, JA (2003) Heppel Howarth & Matthews Abomination Cases & Materials (5th edition), LexisNexis Butterworths, London

Mullis A and Oliphant K (2003) Torts (3rd edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Rogers WVH (2002) Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (16th edition), Sweet and Maxwell, London

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code COURSEGUY