1. RIVERS STATE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
RUMUOLA, PORT HARCOURT
NAME: ELEBERI JOY CONFIDENCE
MATRIC NO: CAS/D/2013/108
DEPARTMENT: LAW ND 2
COURSE TITLE: LAW OF TORTS
COURSE CODE: LAW 231
LECTURER NAME: BARR. T.A. ABBIYESUKU

2. Question
(1) With the aid of contemporary judicial authorities critically examine the law of negligence in law
of torts.
(2) Examine the law relating to occupier liability

3. Acknowledgement
Gratitude is hereby expressed to God Almighty, for his province and inspiration which he bestowed
on me to write about this piece of work.
Godspower, favour and Barivule who also contributed to the writing of the work by creating an ideal
atmosphere for me to write.
I am grateful to Mrs. Justina Igwe my mum for her financial support.
I want to special thank my friend Blessing we counseled me to be careful about me writings and
choice of words.
Lastly I pay loyalty to Mr. Lecturer Mr. T.A. Abbiyesuku for which he serves as a vessel of wisdom
to me.

4. Table of Cases
(1) Caparo industries Plc. V. Dickman (1990) 2 Ac 605 House of Lord
(2) Tarasoff. V. Regents of University of Califonia, 55 1p.2d 334 (Calif. 1976).
(3) Vaughan .V. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467)
(4) Palsgraf. V. Long island rail Road. (Sec 7.5, “cases)
(5) Scott V. London and St. Katherine Docks co.,3A and c. 596, 159 Eng. Rep. 665 (Q.B.1865).
(6) John. V. Kosmos Portland cement co. 64 F. 2d 193 (6th
Cor.1933)
(7) Lowery. V. Walker (1991) Ac 10 (house of Lords)
(8) Edward. V. Railway Executive (1952 Ac 737
(9) Taylor. V. Glasgow city corporation (1922), Ac 44
(10) Mcgeowa. V. Holden. V. White (1987) QB380
(11) Titchener. V. British Board (1983) I WLR 1427
(12) Jolley. V. Sutton (2010) I WIR 1082
(13) Role. V.. Nathan (1963) IWR 1117
(14) White. V. Blackmore (1972) 3 WLR 296
(15)Darby. V. National Must (2001) 3 LGLR 29
(16) Ferguson. V. Welsh (1987) I WLR 1553
(17) Revill. V. Newbery (1966) 2 WLR 239

5. TABLE OF STATUES
Occupiers liability Act 1957
Sec 1 Sub 3 () of the 1957 (OLA
Sec 1 Sub 2 of the 1957 (OLA)
Sec 5 Sub 1 of the 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 6 of the 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 2 of 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 3 (a) 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 3 (b) 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 4 (a) 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 4 (b) 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 5 1957 (OLA)
Sec 2 Sub 1 1957 (OLA)

6. ABSTRACT
Negligent torts are the mot reverent type of tort. Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but
instead present when an individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable person to someone whom he
or she does owes a duty to. The negligence action found in this particular tort leads to a personal
injury or monetary damages. The elements which constitute a negligent tort are the following : A
person must owe a duty or service to the victim in question; the individual who owes the duty must
violate the promise or obligation; an injury then must arise because of that specific violation; and
the injury causes must have been reasonable foreseeable as a result of the persons negligent
actions:-negligence is an abstract concept that must always be applied to concrete and often widely
varying sets of circumstance S. while occupiers liability : refers to the duty owned by land owners to
those who come onto their land. The term occupier is misleading to an extent since physical
occupation of a land is not necessary for a liability to arise. Occupiers liability is another distinct
form of negligence. Both occupiers liability and negligence there must be duty of care and breach
of duty which will give away for damages to arise. Liability can arose on occupiers for omissions
since their relationship gives risk to duty of take action, and also to ensure reasonable safety of
visitors which visits the occupier of a land.

7. Introduction
Occupier liability Act 1957 (c31) is an Act of the parliament of the United Kingdom that covers
occupiers liability. The result of the third report of the law reform committee, the Act was introduced
to the parliament as the occupiers, liability Bill and granted the Royal Assert on 6 June 1957, coming
into force on 1st
January 1958.
That Act united several classes of visitors to property and the duty of care owed to them by the
occupiers as well as codifying elements of the common law relating to this duty of care. It also
covered the duty owed to parties to a contract entering the property and ways or excluding the
liability for visitors.
The Act introduced an element of liability for land lords who failed to maintain their properties and
were as a result responsible for injury of a non-tenant, something counter to previous common law
rule in English law. The Act is still valid law and forms much if the law relating to occupies liability,
in English law along with occupiers liability Act.
In Negligence: physical harm need not be intentionally caused the law imposes a duty of care on all
of us in our every day lives. Accidents caused by negligence are actionable to determine negligence
is not always easy. If a driver runs a red light, we can say that he is negligent because a driver must
always be careful to ascertain whether the light is red and he was able to stop if it is. Whether some
one was or was not negligent is almost always equation of fact for a Jury to decide Rarely is it legal
question that judges can settle.

8. The tort of negligence has four elements (1) a duty of due care that the defendant had (2) The breach of
the duty of due care (3) connection between cause and injury (4) actual damages or loss the depend may
be able to show that the law excuses the conduct that is the basis for the tort claim. We examine each of
these factors below:
(1) A duty of due care that the dependent had not: every unintentional act that causes injury is
negligent. If you brake to a stop when you see a child dart out in front of you care, and the noise
from countries gives someone in a nearby house a heart attack you have not acted negligently.
Towards the person in the house. The purpose of the negligence standard is to protect others
against the risk of injury that for really would ensure from unreasonable dangerous conduct. The
law tired to encapsulate it in the form of the famous standard of “the reasonable man” this
fictitious perform “of ordinary prudence” is the model that juries are instructed acted
negligently.
Despite the many difficulties, the concept of the reasonable man is one on which most
negligence causes ultimately turn. If a dependent has acted unreasonable under the circumstance”
and his conduct posed an unreasonable risk of injury, then he is liable for injury cased by his
conduct.
The reasonable man stops for traffic lights and always drives at reasonable speeds does not throw
baseballs through windows.
The “reasonable man” standard imposes hind slight on the deciduous and action of people in
society .
Thus in the case of Caparo Industries Plc V. Dickman (1990) 2 Ac 605 House of Lord
Fact: caparo industries purchased shares in fidelity plc in reliance of the accounts which stated
that the company had made a pre tax profit of B.3m in fact fidelity had made a loss of order E
400,00.caparo brought an action-against the auditors claiming they were negligenting petrifying the
account.
HELD. It was held that no duty of care was owned. There was so sufficient proximity between
caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of caparo nor the purpose
for which the accounts were being used by them.
(2) Duty of care and its breach
The law does not impose us a duty to care for every person. If the rule otherwise, we would all,
in this interdependent world, be our brothers keepers, constantly unjure whether an action we took
might subject us do liability for its effect on someone else. The law copes with this difficulty by
limiting the number of people toward whom we owe a duty to be careful.
_____________________
Caparo Industries Plc V. Dickman (1990) 2 Ac 605 House of Lord

9. In general the law imposed no obligation to act in a situation to which we are strangers. We may
pass the drawing child without rising a law suit but if we do act, the law requires us to as carefully. The
law of negligence requires as to behave with due regard for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.
In order to avoid unreasonable risk or injury
e.g physicians are bound by principle of medical ethics respect the confidence of their patient
tells a psychiatrist that he intends to kill his girl friend. Dues the psysician then have a higher legal
duty to warn propective victim” the California supreme court has said yes. It is seen in the case of
Tarasoff v. Regents of university of California, 551 p.2d 334 (calif. 1976).
Beach of the duty of care : where a defendant has violated a statute or municipal ordinance is
eased considerably with the doctrine of negligence persese.
In vaughan.v menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467 fact: the defendant’s Haystack caught fire due to
poor sentilation. The defendant had been warned on numerous occasion that this would happen if he
left the haystack. The defendant argued he has used his best judgment and did not foresee a risk of
fire.
HELD: His best judgment was not enough. He was to be judged by a standard of a reasonable
man.
The breach of duty in negligence liabilities decided by the objective test in the dependent
expected to meet the standard of a reasonable man.
Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause
In Tort theory there are 2 kinds of causes that a plaintiff must prove actual; and proximate cause.
Actual cause (causation in fact) can be found if the connection between the dependents act and the
plaintiff injuries passes the “but for” test; if an injury would not have excursed “but for the dependents
conduct, then the dependent is the cause of the injury. Still, this is sot enough causation to create
liability. The injuries to the plaintiff must also be forseeable, or not “too remote, for the defendants act
to create liability.
This is proximate cause. A cause that is not too remote or foreseeable.
Suppose that the person who has injured was not one who a reasonable person could have expected to be
harmed. Such a situation was presented in road. (Sec 7.5 “cases”) which was decided by Judge
Benjamin Cardozo, although judge cardozo persuaded 4 of his brethren to side with his position, the
closeness of the case demonstrates the difficulty that unforseeable consequences an unforseeable
plaintiffs present.
_________________________
caparo industries plc V. Dickman (1990) 2 Ac 605 House of Lord
Vaughan .V Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467

10. Damages
For a plaintiff to win a tort case. The must allege and prove that she was injured. The fear that she
might be injured in future is not a sufficient basis for agent. This rule has proved troublesome
disease cases. A Doctors negligent act or company’s negligent exposure of a worker to some form of
contamination might not become manifest in the body for years.
The tort statute of limitations might have run out. An increasing numbers of courts have eased the
plaintiffs predicament by ruling that the state of limitations fact does not begin to run until the victim
discovers that she has been injured or contracted a disease.
The law allows an exception to the general rule that changes must be shown when the plaintiff
stands is danger for immediate injury from a hazardous activities. If you discover your neighbor,
experimentation with explosives in his basement you could bring suit to enjoin him from further
experimentations, even though he has not yet blown up his house and yours.
Problem of proof
The plaintiff in a tort suit as in any other, has the burden of proving his allegations. He must show
that the dependent took the actions complained of as negligent demonstrate the circumstances that
make the actions negligent and prove the occurrence and extent of injury. Factual issues are for the
Jury to resolve. The law allows certain presumptions and rules of evidence that ease the plaintiff’s
task. One important rule goes be the Latin phrase “res ipsa loquitur” meaning “the thing speaks for
its’. The best evidence is always the most direct evidence: an eye witness are often unavailable.
In many cases, therefore, circumstantial evidence (evidence that is direct) will be only evidence on
will constitute the bulk of the evidence.
Circumstantial evidence of ten be quite telling. Res Ipsa loquitur” is a rule of circumstantial of
common statement of the rule is the following “there must be a reasonable evidence of negligence
but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that to accident arose
from want of cars” see Scott. V. London and St Katherine Docks co. 3H and c. 596, 159 Eng. Pep.65
(Q.B.1865).
If a barrel of flour roles out of a factory window and hits some, or a soda bottle explodes, or an
airplane crashes, courts. In every state permit juries to conclude, in the absences of contrary
explanations by the defendants, that there was negligence that the defendant was negligent of the fact
does not conclude the injury or automatically entitle the plaintiff to a judgment.
________________________________
Scott. V. London and St Katherine Docks co. 3H and c. 596, 159 Eng. Pep.65 (Q.B.1865).

11. Torts law provides the dependent with several excuses some of which are discussed briefly.
• Excuses
There are more excuse (defenses than are listed here, but contributory negligence or comparative
negligence, assumption of risk, and Act of God are among the principal defenses that will
completely or partially excuse the negligence the defendant .
• Contributory and comparative negligence
• Under an old common-law rule it was a complete defense to show that the plaintiff in a
negligence suit was him self negligent.
The court would dismiss the suit if the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to his injury.
In few states today, this rule of contributory negligence is still in effect.
The rule encompasses a narrower form than that which the defendant is charged.
Because the plaintiffs over in such is in being less careful of himself than he might have been.
Whereas the dependent is charged with conduct careless toward others. This rule was so manifestly
injust in many cases that most states, either by statute or judicial decision,
• Comparative negligence. Under rule of comparative negligence, damages are apportioned
according to the defendants degree of culpability. For e.g. is the plaintiff has sustained a
S100,000 injury and is 20 percent responsible, the defendant be liable for S80,000 in damages.
• Act of God: Technically, the rule that no one is sometimes called, is not an excuse but a
defense premised on a lack of causation. If a force of nature caused the harm, then the
defendant was not negligent in the first place. However, if it is Forseeable that harm will flow
from negligent condition triggered by a natural event, there is liability.
• E.g a work over failed to remove residual expolsive gas from an oil barge lightening hit the
barge, exploded the gas and injured several Workmen the plaintiff recovered damages against
the company because the negligence consisted in the failure to guard anyone of a number of
chance occurrences that could ignite the gas. Case law (John. V. Kosmos, Port and Cement co,
64f.2nd
193 (6th
cor. 1933)
• Vicarious Liability: Liability for negligent acts does not always end with the one who has
negligent under certain circumstance, the liability is impaired to others.
e.g an employer is responsible for the negligence of hi employees if they were acting in the scope
of employment. This rule of vicarious liability is often called respondent superior, meaning that the
higher authority must respond to claims brought against one of its agents.
Legislatures in many states have enacted laws that make people vicariously liable for acts of
certain people with whom they have relationship, though not necessarily one of agency.
It is common for e.g. the owner of an automobile to be liable for the negligence of one to whom
the owner lends the car. So called dram shop statutes place liability on bar and tavern owners and
others who serve too much alcohol so one who, in an in toxicated state. Later causes injury to others.
Occupiers Liability
The occupiers liability acts of 1957 and 1984 imposed obligations on occupiers rather than the
land owners.
The question of which a specific person is a occupier is a question which acquires fact
(burdening of Proof) and it also depends on the degree of control exercised.
• Occupiers Liability Act 1957: This Act impose a common duty of care on occupiers to lawful
visitors which is stated in (Sec 1, (3a) of the 1957 (Ola), the Act states it does not only applies
land and buildings, but it also included fixed and moveable structure, vessel, vehicle or aircraft
etc.
_________________________________
Case law (John. V. Kosmos, Port and Cement co, 64f.2nd
193 (6th
cor. 1933)
occupiers liability acts of 1957 and 1984
(Sec 1, (3a) of the 1957 (Ola),
(Sec, C3 (a) of the 1957 (Ola), Invitees

12. There are protected damages which is provide for by the (Ola) of 1957 which includes death,
personal injury and damage done to property.
• Lawful visitors: are those to whom occupiers owes the common duty of care, for the purposes
of the occupiers liability of 1957 include:
• Invitees (Sec 1 Sub 2 of occupiers liability Act (Ola) 1957 are those who have been invited into
the land and of which they have express permission to be there in the land.
• License: (Sec 1 Sub 2 occupiers liability Act (Ola) 1957
Are those who have implied permission to be there. It includes situation where a license would be
implied at common law:
Those who enter pursuant to a contract (Sec 5 Sub 1 (Ola) 1957 e.g
Paying objects at a hotel) those entering in exercising a right conferred by lay (Sec 2 sub 6 (Ola)
1957
• Implied License At common Law:
A licenses may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken
by the occupier to prevent people coming on the land Case Law (Lowery V. Walker (1911) Ac 10
(House of Lords)
Law (Lowery V. Walker (1911) Ac 10 (House of Lords)
Fact the diamante was injured by a horse when using a shot out across the defendant’s …………
the land had been habitually used as a shortest by members of the public for many years and the
dependent had taken no steps to prevent people coming on to the land. The dependant was aware
that the horse was dangerous
Held: The dependant was liable while the claimant did not have express permission to be on the
land a license was implied through repeated trespass and the dependants acquire scence also
Edward V. Railway Executive (1952 Ac 737)
• Allurement principle: the courts are more likely to imply a licence if there is something on the
land which is particularly attractive and acts as an allurement to draw people on the land.
The introduction of the occupiers liability Act 1984 have been reluctant to imply a license (Taylor.
V. Glasgow city corporation (1992) 1 AC 44).
In this case of Taylor. V. Glasgow corporation the dependants owned the Botanic gardens of
Glasgow, a park which was open to the public, on the park which was open to the public various
botanic plants and shrubs hrew. A boy of 7 years ate some berries from one of the shrubs. The
berries were poisonous and the boy died. For shrub was not fenced off and no warming signs were
present as to the danger the berrier represented.
HELD : Glasgow corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go the land berries would have
been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger the dependents were aware the
berries were poisonious no warning or protection was offered.
• Non Lawful Visitors
The occupiers liability Act (Ola) of 1957 does not extend protection to the
______________________
Sec 1 Sub 2 of occupiers liability Act (Ola) 1957
License: (Sec 1 Sub 2 occupiers liability Act (Ola) 1957
(Sec 5 Sub 1 (Ola) 1957
(Sec 2 sub 6 (Ola) 1957
Edward V. Raiway Executive (!952 Ac 737)
(Taylor. V. Glasgow city corporation (1992) 1 AC 44)
(McgeOwa. V. Northern Ireland (1994) 3 All ER 53)
(Holdeniv. White (1987) QB 380)

13. (1) Tresspasser
(2) Invitees who were not given permission to visit the premises
(3) Person on the land exercising a public right of way.
(Mcgeowa. Northern Ireland (1994) 3 All ER 53)
(4) Person which are on the land exercising a private right of way. (Holden v White (1987) QB
380)
The common Duty to care
The common duty of care is set out in (Sec 2 Sub 2 of (Ola) 1957)
Sec 2 sub 2: The common duty of care is to take such cares as in all the circumstance of the visitor of the
case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonable safety in using the premises for the purpose
of which he is invited for .
N/B: The standard of care varies according to the circumstance (Sec 2 Sub 3a) an occupier must be
prepared to are for children greatly more he will are for adults.. (Sec 2 sub 3b): an occupier may except
that a person in the exercise of his falling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily
incident to it.
The courts will take into account the age of the child and level; of his ability of which child of his
age is expected to have.
Case law T. Titchener. V. British Board (1983) I WLR 1427) also ( Jolley.V. Sutton (2000) 1
WLR 1082).
• Warning and warning sings
It may be possible for an occupier to discharge their duty by giving a warning of the danger that is
ahead which may likely occur in the future Role V. Nathan (1963) I WLR 1117) (sec 2 sub 4 (a)
(Ola) 1957) states thus that a warning given to the visit will not treated as absolving the occupier
or liability unless the circumstance it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonable safe.
* (White. V. Blackmore (1972) 3 WLR 296) there is no duty to warn against obvious risks, also
(Darby V. National trust (2001) 3 LGLR 29)
* Danger arising from actions undertaken by independent contractors. (Sec 2 Sub 4 (6) (Ola) 1957)
An occupier will not be held liable for dangers created by independent contractors if the occupier
acted reasonable in all the circumstances in entrusting the work for the independent contracts and fork
reasonable steps to satisfy himself, the work carried out was properly done and the contractor was
competent (Ferguson .V. Welsh (1987) WLR 1553)
• Defenses applicable to occupiers liability Act (Ola 1957)
Violent Non Fit Injuria (Sec 2 Sub 5 (Ola) 1957) the common duty of care does not impose an
obligation on the occupiers in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor. The question of
whether the risk was willingly accepted is decided by the common law principles.
• Exclusion Liability (Sec 2 Sub 1 (Ola) 1957): permits an occupier to extend, restrict exclude or
modify his duty to visitors in so far as he is free to do so. ( White .V. Black more (1972) 3
WLR 296) “where the occupier is a business man the ability to exclude liability is subject to
the (Unfair Contract terms Act 1977).
• Standard Of care
____________________________
The common duty of care is set out in (Sec 2 Sub 2 of (Ola) 1957)
(Sec 2 Sub 3a)
( Jolley.V. Sutton (2000) 1 WLR 1082)
Role V. Nathan (1963) I WLR 1117) (sec 2 sub 4 (a) (Ola) 1957)
(White..V. Blackmore (1972) 3 WLR 296)
(Darby V. National trust (2001) 3 LGLR 29).
(Sec 2 Sub 4 (6) (Ola) 1957)
( Ferguson .V. Welsh (1987) WLR 1553)
(Sec 2 Sub 5 (Ola) 1957)
(Sec 2 Sub 5 (Ola) 1957)
( White .V. Black more (1972) 3 WLR
(Unfair Contract terms Act 1977)
Sec 1 Sub 4 Ola 1984): The

14. N/B there is no obligation in relation to the warning to enable the visitor to be reasonable safe.
Contract the provision under the 1957 Act.
Conclusion
The most common tort is based on the negligence of the dependant in each negligence claim, the
plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
(1)The defendant had a duty o due care
(2) The defendant breached that duty
(3) That the breach if duty both actually and approximately has caused harm to the plaintiff
(4) That the harm is measurable in money damages.
It is the case of someone who loans his automobile to another driver who is negligent and causes
injury. There are many excuses (defenses) to claim of negligence, including assumption of risk and
comparativeness negligence. In those few jurisdictions where contractor negligence has not been
modified to comparative negligence plaintiffs whose negligence contributes to their own injuries
will be barred from any recovery.
In occupiers liability a holder of a premises by is by law required to care for those who visit his
premises with his express permission, the occupier is responsible for any damages or injury obtain
by the visit in his premises. The occupier then will be held dutifully to care for the vistor who has
obtain an injury in the premises while on the other hand if any one visit the premises of an
occupier with the express permission of the occupier what ever harm or damage caused to him, the
occupier of the land will not be held liable because the visitors did not gain the express permission
of the occupier for him to visit the premises
Negligence and occupiers liability are inter related they both work hand in hand. Occupiers
liability can not gain full insite if you do not discuss about negligence.
I also want to recommend this little piece of work to law of torts student.

15. Bibliography
Law of torts by S. M. Malemi
Legal Aspects of property, Estate planning and insurance (vol. 1.0.)
Occupiers liability the free encyclopedia
Occupies liability Act (Ola) 1957
Occupiers liability Act (Ola) 1984
Markesinis and Deakin’s tort law. Oxford University Press.