Lieke Spruit (16030575) Tort Law
Case law
Case name Topic Principle
Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] Strict liability; This case established a new tort which provided
nuisance for strict liability of defendants in certain
nuisance-related situations. The required
elements of the tort are as follows:
• In the course of ‘non-natural use’ of the
land,
• The defendant brings onto his land and
collects and keeps there.
• Something likely to do mischief if it
escapes;
• It does escape,
• And causes damage of a foreseeable
kind
The defendant was held strictly liable on the
basis that he had collected this mischief-causing
water on his land and allowed it to escape and
damage the plaintiff’s land.
Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Duty of care This case provides an early example of the
[1928] unforeseeable claimant. Although the
defendant owed a duty of care to the nearby
passengers regarding their person and
property, it was unforeseeable that the plaintiff
was at risk and therefore no duty was owed to
her.
Robinson v. Balmain Ferry Intentional The plaintiff was caught on the wrong side of
[1910] torts; false the defendant’s turnstile and could have passed
imprisonment through by paying one penny. For this reason, it
was not accepted that he had been falsely
imprisoned.
Herring v. Boyle [1834] Intentional No need for the plaintiff to have been aware of
torts; false the imprisonment but knowledge of the
imprisonment detention might be relevant to the assessment
of damages.
Murray v. Ministry of Defence Intentional Knowledge of the restraint of freedom of
[1988] torts; false movement was not necessary to establish false
imprisonment imprisonment.
Case law
Case name Topic Principle
Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] Strict liability; This case established a new tort which provided
nuisance for strict liability of defendants in certain
nuisance-related situations. The required
elements of the tort are as follows:
• In the course of ‘non-natural use’ of the
land,
• The defendant brings onto his land and
collects and keeps there.
• Something likely to do mischief if it
escapes;
• It does escape,
• And causes damage of a foreseeable
kind
The defendant was held strictly liable on the
basis that he had collected this mischief-causing
water on his land and allowed it to escape and
damage the plaintiff’s land.
Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Duty of care This case provides an early example of the
[1928] unforeseeable claimant. Although the
defendant owed a duty of care to the nearby
passengers regarding their person and
property, it was unforeseeable that the plaintiff
was at risk and therefore no duty was owed to
her.
Robinson v. Balmain Ferry Intentional The plaintiff was caught on the wrong side of
[1910] torts; false the defendant’s turnstile and could have passed
imprisonment through by paying one penny. For this reason, it
was not accepted that he had been falsely
imprisoned.
Herring v. Boyle [1834] Intentional No need for the plaintiff to have been aware of
torts; false the imprisonment but knowledge of the
imprisonment detention might be relevant to the assessment
of damages.
Murray v. Ministry of Defence Intentional Knowledge of the restraint of freedom of
[1988] torts; false movement was not necessary to establish false
imprisonment imprisonment.
