Assignment on Tort Law of Negligence
Added on - 28 May 2020
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 9 pages
Running Head: Public Law1Law
Public law2Part ATort law is considered as civil wrong done by one person towards another person, and the mostcommon form of tort law is negligence. Negligence is considered as an action or failure to act byone person who owns duty of care towards another person, and such act or failure to act causeinjury or damage to person.In the present case, P is a lifelong fan of ABC Club and at the time of watching a game, p washit by a stray ball which broke the glasses of P. In this case, P can take action against thedefendant under tort of negligence.This part of the answer defines the position of each possible defendant related to legal action,and for the purpose of this case relevant defendants are player, Football club, Coach, and thelocal council who owns the football club1.It must be noted that in some cases several tortfeasors are held liable for the tort committed bythese parties against one party, and in this context all the tortfeasors are jointly liable for theharm. They are liable towards the plaintiff may depend on their individual degree of liability, aswell as the rules for that particular jurisdiction.In the present case, P can take actions against the Football Club because club owned duty of caretowards the P and other defendants are also jointly liable for the negligence. In this case, Footballclub is mainly liable towards the P and P can take action against the Football club.This can be understood through case lawMiller v. Jackson (1977)2,in this case plaintiff sued thecricket club for damage caused to their property by balls. In this case, defendants were the1Lawgovpool, TORTS,http://lawgovpol.com/torts/, (accessed on 17thJanuary 2018).2Miller v Jackson 3 WLR 20 Court of Appeal.
Public law3members of the Lintz Cricket Club and in this ground cricket had been played from last seventyyears. This land was owned by the National Coal Board (NCB) and this board also owed somefields adjacent the grounds. Four years before the action, one of the grounds was sold out by theNCB and on this Wimpey homes was developed near the cricket ground. Mrs. Miller bought oneof the houses and take action under tort of negligence against the cricket club. In this Mrs. Millerseeks injunction to prevent the players from playing the cricket at the ground. At initial stage,there were number of balls which hit the house of Mrs. Miller.However, during the period of 1976 cricket club made the higher fence and the number of ballshit the house was reduced. No personal injuries resulted from the ball but it result in someproperty damages for which cricket club made the payment. She also made complaint that it wasnot possible for her to use her garden during the matches3.In this case, court decided that defendants were liable for both negligence and nuisance.However, injunction was refused by the Cumming Bruce LJ on the ground that it would not befair to provide injunction against the cricket ground because this ground had been used for solong and it also result in loss to the community. Injunction would also provide advantage to Mr.Miller of being adjacent to an open space.Lord Lane in this case granted the injunction on the basis of the decision inSturges vBridgeman4and this case involves the assumption that there was no defense on the part ofdefendant to show that they result in the nuisance.3Legal Services Commission of South Australia, Negligence,https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php,(accessed on 17thJanuary 2018).4Sturges v Bridgeman  11 Ch D 852 Court of Appeal.