Torts Case Study

1606 Words7 Pages
INTRODUCTION The present essay deals with the law of torts. But, before dwelling onto the pertinent issue of what legal remedy the following parties have I will focus my attention on the concept of the law of torts. At a very basic level, one can say that tort law is concerned with the allocation of responsibility for losses which occur in our society in which we live. In the majority of tort cases coming before the courts the aggrieved party usually seeks monetary compensation (damages) for the injury that he has suffered (Jolowicz, 2007). The main purpose of the law of torts is to award compensation for injuries suffered by one party as a result of the conduct of another party (Pillai, 2011). THE PARTIES IN THE GIVEN CASE SEEKING REMEDY:…show more content…
The word possession is an important concept in law (Pillai, 2011). The interference with the possession of someone else’s land or property is sufficient to amount to trespass to property. Lavender v. Betts is an interesting case where a landlord was held liable for committing trespass and nuisance on his own property in the possession of his tenant. The landlord was held liable and penalized for punitive damages for his domineering mode of causing discomfort to the tenant. Also, in Gregory v. Piper it was held that the rubbish placed near the plaintiff’s land amounted to an injury to the claimant since the act of the defendant was direct and intentional. Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Powell v. Mcfarlane indicated that possession of the land requires two important elements namely; factual possession and the intention to possess the land (Witting, 2012). Also, when Arun and Chandler were thrown out on the stairs by Gavin and Bruce they committed the offence of trespass to property by throwing beer bottles and knife into Andy’s property. The act of Arun and Chandler amounts to trespass since the act of throwing beer bottles and knife into someone else’s property is actionable per se. It is evident from their actions that their intention was to damage Andy’s…show more content…
He wrongfully restrained Andy which is not authorized by law either impliedly or expressly. In Meering v Graham-White Aviation Co Ltd. , it was held that a private prosecutor does not have an absolute right that a police constable possesses to imprison a person on mere suspicion. In such circumstances, false imprisonment results when the person is detained by the private prosecutor and a felony is committed. This was a landmark case since it carved out a rule that the person’s lack of knowledge about his detention is immaterial for a prima facie case of false imprisonment. Also, in Bird v. Jones (1845), the plaintiff was attempting to proceed in a particular direction which was obstructed by the defendant. The defendant had stopped the plaintiff to proceed only in that particular direction, thereby, restricting his motion only in one direction. The majority of the judges were of the opinion that a tort of false imprisonment was not committed since his motion was not restrained in every direction. Trespass to

More about Torts Case Study

Open Document