Talk:English tort law

Don't merge but expand[edit]

This article on English Tort Law could be much expanded and then merit its own page. There is enough to say about english tort law. myfavoritetort 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

This brief description of Trespass belongs on the Tort page.

Untitled Discussion[edit]

Nothing wrong with this!

I totally agree. Kappa 23:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English tort law[edit]

The page needs expansion here - because eventually (and it might take a while for good natured people to work on it) there should be a cross-jurisdictional page, which is tort and then a separate one for every country (and even state, when talking of places like the US). I'm taking the merge tag down. Better to put text and cases, with references up instead of this. Wik idea 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious liability[edit]

Great to see some work going on, but just two points. Aren't the most important things about the vicarious liability test (in the normal case) that,

that someone must be shown to be an employee, see Ready Mixed Concrete or Market Investigations; and,
that the person must have been acting in the "course of employment" - or what is now framed as the close connection test - and rightly there's Lister v Hesley Hall

The Joel v Morison case uses this lovely phrase that an employee is no longer acting in the course of employment if someone has gone off "on a frolic of his own", though of course paedophiles are now caught, as in Hesley Hall (I think Bazley v Curry is another important case). Maybe some indication of the policy reasons for this are important (enterprise liability, etc). Another case based justification is in Tuberville v Stampe, where Lord Holt emphasises that if you want the benefits of an employee you must accept the burdens. Wik idea 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've covered all of this in depth in an article in my user space (User:RichsLaw/Vicarious liability in English law - which isn't quite done), but only got so far writing the summary of vicarious liability out on this page. I'll finish the main article then finish the 'blurb' on this page, probably. RichsLaw (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a sort of aside, there are a fair few vicarious liability cases that could do with covering.. Bazley v Curry, Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security, the Omnibus cases, and Mattis v Pollock. RichsLaw (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff - I just think that when you're finishing, these points are well worth the emphasis. Wik idea 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting recent article you may want to read is Jason Neyers, a Canadian, arguing that vicarious liability is an implied term of indemnity in employment etc contracts. Wik idea 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely emphasise those two points in the overview, when I visit it again. That article sounds interesting; what journal/year is it? Thanks. RichsLaw (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: "A Theory of Vicarious of Liability" (2005) 43 Alberta Law Review 287-326 - I don't really agree with this whole hypothetical "what people would have bargained for" thing. It comes out of the law and economics school of thought. But its a very comprehensive article, and if you want footnotes, you've got tonnes! Wik idea 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get access to it under my subscriptions, unfortunately. I finished the vicarious liability article; suggestions and improvements would be more than welcome. My time's limited for the next week or so but I'll finish the summary on this page if noone beats me to it. RichsLaw (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need mention of orphan[edit]

Case of the Thorns needs a link where appropriate 76.117.247.55 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

This section is almost incomprehensible. Nowhere else in Wikipedia can I find anything written about closed or open legal systems. Further, a search of various legal websites sheds no light on the usage. Last, whilst I can find some legal references to the terms nominate tort and innominate tort, they are far from comprehensive, and seem to point to Australian legal usage only. The use of the legal terms nominate contracts, nominate obligations or nominate rights is far more common, as is the corollary of innominate contracts, innominate obligations or innominate rights. I can see how logically it might be argued that a nominate tort is breach of a nominate contract, nominate obligation or nominate right but the use does not seem well established and one can't simply make up terms in an encyclopaedic entry however persuasive they might seem to be. Unbelievable, really, and very disappointing that after some years lying fallow this is the best that Wikipedia contributors can come up with for the History of Torts. I would have a go myself but I know next to nothing about the subject. 124.186.104.184 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Proximity"[edit]

It would be useful if there was a page on the concept of proximity in English law to link to; however, linking the legal concept of proximity to the article about Distance as in physical measurement (which makes no reference to the legal concept at all) seems bafflingly pointless, so I've removed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and other IPR[edit]

Seems that the torts of infringement of various intellectual property rights (IPR) such as copyright should be mentioned on this page at least in passing as they're prominent torts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.42.72 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]