UNITED KINGDOM LAW OF TORT

UK TORT ACT

This case falls under `negligence ' under tort and is of `civil ' in nature . Negligence means guilty conduct since it is not fall under the legal customary thereby safeguarding individuals against probable risk harmful act of another subject of the society . Thus negligent behaviour towards others offers them rights to be compensated for the injury caused to their body

In the case of Caparo v . Dickman , it was held that harm should have three components . There should be relationship of closeness between the injured and the other party , it

should be logically anticipated and it must be `just , fair and reasonable to inflict liability In tort , no liability under negligence can be established unless the injured establishes that he owed a duty of care by the defendant and that can prove that there has been a breach of duty

The injured has to prove that there is negligence and to establish on the balance of probabilities , the defendant is in obligation a duty of care and had he infringed that duty and in acting so , inflicted damage or loss to the claimant that ought to be reimbursed by the award of damages

In this case , Tanya took the flat for lease for seven years from Simon Though the lease covanants clearly specifies that Simon would not be liable for any maintenance or repair and that he would not accept liability to any tenant or anyone else for injury or damage caused by any defect in the premises , let or retained . But this clause is against natural justice , and violates the provisions of the Defective Premises Act , 1972 and the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act ,1985 . It is to be noted that in some limited situations and extraordinary circumstances , an injured may be able to rely on res ipsa loquitur (`the things speaks for itself . Under this provision , defendant has the primary liability to prove that he was not negligent . On the basis of this rule of evidence , the mere reality that an accident occurring increases the presumption of the defendant 's negligence ,so that a prima facie case subsists It was held in the case Ballard v North British Railways that one may assume .negligence from the mere fact that occurs

The situation where the Res Ipsa Lqquitur can be applied

For the applicability of the above maxim , the satisfaction of three conditions is essential

In Easson v Lner , it was held that the defendant must have control over the situations that inflicted damages

In Scott v . London and St .Katherine Docks , it was laid down that the accident should be such that would not normally occur without negligence

Further , in Barkway v South Wales Transport , it was held that unknown causes must have triggered the accident

Here Tanya could claim damages under `negligence ' under tort by applying the maxim Res Ipsa Lqquitur as her case is satisfying all the relevant conditions specified above The accident has occurred due to careless of the building contractor...