AN INTRODUCTION TO TORT LAW

Ms. Mary
 CLASS BASICS
CLASS RULES

Raise your hand need to speak or need

teacher’s attention

Use positive language at all times

Listen to and follow all directions
Express respect for your teacher,
classroom & fellow students

Sit quiet in class, Be on time, No phones 2

 CLASSIFICATION OF LAWS
What is a law?
Civil vs. Criminal law, examples?
Definition of a civil action: “An action
brought to enforce, redress, or protect a
private or civil right; a noncriminal litigation”
Compare to the definition for a criminal
action: “An action instituted by the
government to punish offenses against the
public”
Question: Give examples of matters civil or
criminal
 CIVIL ACTIONS ARE DIFFERENT
Criminal Actions Civil Actions
– Brought by the government – Brought by private citizens
– Government is known as – Person bringing action is
the prosecution known as the plaintiff
– Prosecution has the – Plaintiff has the burden of
burden of proof – beyond a proof – preponderance of
reasonable doubt the evidence
– Defendant loses if found – Defendant loses if found
guilty liable
– Usual penalty is a prison – Usual penalty is money
sentence damages
– Question: What are the
types of civil laws that you
know of and what do they
deal with?
 WHAT IS A TORT?
Its not food, a drink or a Japanese cartoon

So what is a tort? Tort is a A civil wrong (an infringement

of a right) for which remedy is damages other than a
breach of contract or breach of trust.(Salmond’s def.)
Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily
fixed by the law: Tort law determines whether a person
should be held legally accountable for an injury against
another, as well as what type of compensation the injured
party is entitled to.
However, note that certain actions constitute a crime as
well as a tort and may give rise to both criminal and civil
proceedings.
Question: Give examples of civil wrongs that you can
move to court for damages.
 PARTIES TO A TORT
A person who commits a tort is known as a tortfeaser, or
a wrongdoer. Where they are more than one, they are
called joint tortfeaser. Their wrongdoing is called
tortuous act and they are liable to be sued jointly and
severally.
Types of liability: Personal, Joint/Several, Vicarious
FUNCTIONS OF LAW OF TORTS
The principle aim of the Law of tort is compensation of
victims or their dependants. Grants of exemplary
damages in certain cases will show that deterrence of
wrong doers is also another aim of the law of tort.
Deterrence: The law of tort is an instrument for making
people adhere to standards of reasonable behavior and
respect and protect the rights and interests of one
another.
 FUNCTIONS OF A TORT LAW
To determine rights between the parties to a
dispute.
To prevent the continuation or repetition of harm
i.e. by giving orders of injunction.
To restore one’s property to its rightful owner i.e.
where the property is wrongfully taken away
from its rightful owner
Vindication: The claimant is not only
compensated, but the courts also wants an
inquiry into the tortious behavior
 Example 1
Not every wrongful act is a tort.
ESSENTIAL ELLEMENTS OF A TORT
A Wrongful act or omission, and

The act must give rise to legal or

actual damage, and

It should be of such a nature that it

should give rise to a legal remedy in
the form of an action for damages.
 1. WRONGFUL ACT
What is a Wrongful Act?(Actus reus)
❑ A wrongful act can be either morally wrong or legally
wrong and can also be both at the same time.
❑ A legal wrongful act is one which affects one’s legal
right, the wrongful act must be one recognized by
law, the act must be in violation of the law to be a
legal wrongful act. i.e. it must prejudicially affect him
in some legal right.
❑ A duty of care is one which is imposed on every
individual and requires a standard of reasonable
care that he could see as being harmful towards
others. Hence, a duty imposed by law is a duty
which is legally enforceable in courts
 WRONGFUL ACT..CONT..
Merely that it will, however directly, do him harm
in his interest is not enough

An act which prima facie appears to be innocent

may become tortuous if it invades the legal right
of another person e.g. the erection in ones' own
land, of anything, which obstructs light to a
neighbors' house.

Liability for a tort arises therefore when the

wrongful act complained of amounts either to an
infringement of a legal private right or a breach or
violation of a legal duty
 Example 1
For example, if someone whose religion
does not allow him/her to eat non-
vegetarian food, still eats it then he/she
will be morally wrong but not legally
wrong. And if a person whose religion
doesn’t allow him or her to eat non-
vegetarian and he or she strictly follows
that religion is forcefully fed by someone
then it is a legal wrong on the part of the
person forcing the other one to eat that
food which he or she does not want to eat
Example 2
 2. LEGAL DAMAGE
….
What is a Legal damage?
❑ The term “damages” is often confused with the term
“damage”, while they may look similar, they have different
meanings and are significantly distinct from each other

❑ The sum of money awarded by court to compensate

damage is called damages. Damage means the loss or
harm caused or presumed to be suffered by a person
as a result of some wrongful act of another.

❑ Legal damage is not the same as actual damage. Every

infringement of the plaintiff’s private right or unauthorized
interference with his property gives rise to legal damage..
There must be violation of a legal right in cases of tort.
 Legal damage
The real significance of legal damage is
illustrated by two maxims namely: Injuria
sine damno and Damnum sine injuria.
Injuria sine damno.
This is the infringement of and absolute
private right without any actual loss or
damage. The phrase simply means Injury
without damage. The person whose right
is infringed has a cause of action e.g. right
to property and liberty are actionable per-
se i.e. without proof of actual damage.
 Examples
Refusal to register a voter was held as and
injury per-se even when the favorite
candidate won the election - Ashby Vs.
White (1703). This rule is based on the old
maxim of law ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which
means that where there is a right, there is
a remedy.
An act of trespassing or simple assault
 Legal damage….CONTI..
Damnum sine injuria
This is the occasioning of actual and
substantial loss without infringement of any right.
The phrase simply means Damage without
injury. No action lies. Mere loss of money or
moneys' worthy does not constitute a tort. There
are many acts, which though harmful are not
wrongful, and give no right of action. Thus
Damnum may be absque injuria i.e. damage
without injury.
 Example
In the case of Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. Me-
Gregory (1892). Certain ship owners combined
together. In order to drive a ship-owner out of
trade by offering cheap freight charges to
customers who would deal with them.

The plaintiff who was driven out of business sued

the ship-owner, for loss caused to him by their act.
The court held that a trader who is ruined by
legitimate competition of his rivals could not get
damages in tort.
Example: In the case of Mayor & Bradford
Corporation Vs. Pickles (1895),
 [Link]
The essential remedy for a tort is action for
damages, but there are other remedies
also e.g. injunction,restitution etc.
Further, damages claimable in tort action
are unliquidated damages. The law of tort
is said to be a founded of the maxim- Ubi
jus remedium i.e. there is no wrong
without a remedy.
 Other essentials
Act or omission: In order to constitute a tort,
there must be a wrongful act. ‘Act’ in this case
constitutes both positive and negative acts, i.e.
acts and omissions. Acts which make one
liable do not include natural acts like lightning
which are beyond human control. They are
also different from mere thoughts and
intentions which are in themselves harmless
and difficult to prove
 Other essentials
Voluntary and involuntary acts: acts and
omissions may be voluntary or involuntary. An
involuntary act does not give rise to liability in
tort.
Malice: In the popular sense, malice means ill-
will or spite. In Law, it means i) intentional doing
of a wrongful act and, ii) improper motive. An
act, otherwise lawful, cannot generally be made
actionable by an averment that it was done with
evil motive. An evil motive per se does not
amount to injuria or legal [Link] a person has
a right to do something then his motive in doing
it is irrelevant.
 Other essentials
Intention: i.e. where a person does a wrongful act
knowing the possible consequences likely to arise,
he is said to have intended that act, and is
therefore at fault. Liability Depends on the exact
tort alleged, Common intentional torts
are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass
to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress

Recklessness: i.e. where a person does an act

without caring what its consequences might be, he
Is at fault. It may be a criteria for establishing a tort
 TYPES OF TORTS
There are a variety of torts, which can broadly
be broken into the following three categories:
Negligent torts
Negligent torts are harms done to people
through the failure of another to exercise a
certain level of care, usually defined as a
reasonable standard of caretorts
❑ It is a reckless act or failure to act as a
reasonable person
 Types of torts…(cont’d)
Intentional torts
Intentional torts, are wrongful acts done on
purpose, deliberately Or intentionally e.g.
assault, battery,
Strict liability torts
Strict liability torts are torts where the law has
determined that some activities are so
dangerous that an individual engaging in
those activities is liable for damages
regardless of intent or negligence resulting in
harm. A common example is blasting with
dynamite.
 INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE
How negligence arises;
Law of torts imposes on everyone ,a duty to exercise due
care all of the time. What is due care?

Due care is the amount of care that a reasonable person

would exercise under the circumstances. What is a
reasonable person?
A reasonable person is not any real person or even the
average person, but an imaginary prudent person who takes
the precautions necessary to would have exercisavoid
harming another person or their property
Negligence is :“The failure to exercise the standard of care
that a reasonably prudent person ed in a similar situation;
any conduct that falls below the legal standard established
to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm
 NEGLIGENCE DEFINED
Defined 2: is an unreasonable, reckless and careless conduct
that causes injury to another. The legal liability of a defendant
to a plaintiff is based on the defendant's failure to fulfil a
responsibility, recognised by law, of which the plaintiff is the
intended beneficiary. .
Examples of negligence :
A driver who runs a stop sign causing an injury crash. A store
owner who fails to put up a “Caution: Wet Floor” sign after
mopping up a spill. A property owner who fails to replace
rotten steps on a wooden porch that collapses and injures
visiting guests
Example 2
Harry is involved in an accident in which his car is hit by one
driven by Alex. As a consequence of the accident Harry
breaks a leg and is unable to work for two months. Can Harry
sue Alex for damages? On the face of things the answer
seems obvious. Harry was injured as a result of Alex driving
into his car and so it seems fair that he should be able to sue
him. However, think of the situation from Alex’s point of view,
is it fair that Harry should be able to sue him just like that?
 LIMITATIONS ON NEGLIGENCE SUITS
Negligence is essentially concerned with compensating
people who have suffered damage as a result of
carelessness of others, but the law does not provide a
remedy for everyone who suffers in this way. One of the main
ways in which access is restricted is through the doctrine of
duty of care. The reasons for such as below;
Floodgates argument-Risk of overload of court system with
trivial cases while isolating those with real cases to get justice
and a burden on those who could be sued. Greater burden
on running businesses, high cost of products and taxes
Impact on Insurance- Creation of more duties wound mean
a higher burden on insurance companies to cover the new
risks, high cost of insurance for businesses, burden on policy
holders and taxes on businesses, costs transferred to end
consumer of products
 LIMITATIONS ON NEGLIGENCE SUITS
Social Activities- Creating too wide an opportunity to sue
over lack of care can have restrictive effects on businesses
and other desirable activities. E.g., Risks of legal action
against doctors wound prevent or restrict them from trying
various treatments on patients or taking unnecessary and
expensive tests to guard themselves against potential suits.
Public policy: Courts will not allow some suits to succeed on
moral or public interest considerations.
ELLEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE
The plaintiff needs to prove four elements by a
preponderance of the evidence
▪Duty
▪Breach of Duty
▪Causation (two parts)
▪Damages
 What right or interest does
negligence protect ?
Law of negligence protects 3 types of
injuries
Personal injury( physical and psychiatric)
Damage to property
Economic loss
Liability in negligence is restricted when it
is considered policy reasons e.g. the
courts may limit on who can bring a claim
for psychiatric harm or economic loss
 AIMS OF THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
Corrective justice: Justice requires that a person does not
interfere with others and if he does, the person harmed
should be compensated
Compensation: Justice is achieved not only by requiring the
defendant to pay damages for the losses he caused but also
by actually paying the damages( Limited aim where the
defendant lacks the means to pay or no access to insurance
& no individual responsibility
Deterrence: Imposing liability enables other to adjust their
behaviours and deter careless behaviour ( The aim if
weakened by the availability of insurance)
Vindication: Some claims in negligence are brought to find
out what happened due to publicity and stop from such
incidents from happening
 NEGLIGENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
The Human Rights Act 1988 imposes a duty on the state to
respect and act consistently with the EU Convention on
Human Rights i.e., Right to life, liberty, security and fair trial

The HRA 1988 provides that it is unlawful for a state to act

in a manner inconsistent with the Convention

All decisions by the state must therefore be consistent with

the HRA
Rights that exist between private parties must therefore be
provided adequate protection
The Human Rights Act is increasingly used in tort law e.g. it
allows a party to sue the state for violation of a right where
there is no appropriate remedy under common law
 LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE
Personal liability: Law of torts imposes liability on an individual level (the
person committing the tort).However, individual liability does not
necessarily mean that the individual will pay the damages

Joint tortfeasors: Arises where two or more people maybe responsible

for the claimant’s harm. The defendant may be liable;

Independently( personally): Arises when a claimant suffers loss as a

result of 2 separate torts( each defendant is liable for their own tort)
Several liability: Arises where more than one defendant acts
independently to cause harm to the claimant ( Liability depends on the
level of contribution to the damage)

Joint liability arises where two or more tortfeasors jointly and for a
common purpose/plan , both are liable for the damage caused
Vicarious liability: Liability for torts committed by another person e.g
Employer-employee, Master-servant
 HOW TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE
The plaintiff needs to prove four elements
by a preponderance of the evidence
1. Duty
2. Breach of Duty
3. Causation (two parts)
4. Damages
 1. DUTY
What is a duty? A duty is an obligation imposed by the law(
not a moral or religious one)
❑ There has to be a legally imposed obligation to do or not do
something. On the flip side, existence of a legally protected
right
Generally speaking, a person owes a “duty of care” to
those around him or her (i.e. a duty to act reasonably).In its
most simplistic terms, it is a legal obligation to either do or
not do something that will harm someone else
Example 1: A manufacturer’s duty of care is to sell products
that are reasonably safe and to provide warnings of any
potential dangers that the use of the product may cause.
Therefore, the scope of a manufacturer’s duty of care is to a
consumer who uses the product as intended and properly.
The manufacturer may have no duty of care to a consumer
who uses the product for a different purpose than intended
❑ Example 2: The law of torts imposes a duty not to; -
Trespass on others land - Duty not to defame others - Duty
not to injure others on the road - Duty on occupiers towards
their visitors
❑ Question 1: Give examples of situations where we all have a
duty or an obligation to act reasonably or reasonably refrain
from certain actions, in such a way as to not cause injury or
harm to another person.
❑ Question 2: Give examples of situations where we HAVE
NO DUTY to act .
❑ -No duty to not cause psychiatric injury
❑ -No duty to give aid
❑ -No duty to not cause pure economic loss
 The Duty of Care: Example
Would a reasonable person drive down the
street with a paper grocery bag over her
head?

The reasonable person would not do this

Thus, part of the duty of care when driving
is to not obstruct your vision
 How to determine existence of duty, to
who it is owed and what extent?
Whether a duty exist or not depends on 2 possible
tests;
EITHER
1. Demonstrating that a situation under consideration
falls within the category of duty that has been
established by precedents , a question if duty is
already established by precedents. If so, no need for
further proof of duty, e.g.:
- Doctor-patient, Parent-Child, Employer-Employee
relationship,
Manufacturers duty towards customers, etc.
HOW TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF A
DUTY ( Step 2)

OR
2. Proof duty through the already
established principles in torts .i . e,
- Foreseeability
- Proximity
- Fairness , reasonable and Just
 WHO IS THE REASONABLE PERSON?
The reasonable person is a legal fiction

Typically, the jury is asked whether a reasonable person

of ordinary prudence in the defendant’s position would act
as the defendant acted
We take our reasonable man and put him in the
defendant’s place so that he is theoretically acting at
exactly the same time, and under the exact same
conditions, that the defendant acted.

In objective test, we do not care what was going through

the defendant’s mind when he committed his act or
omission. All we care about is what a reasonable person
in the defendant’s shoes would have done
 The Duty of Care: Example
Would a reasonable person drive down the
street with a paper grocery bag over her
head?

The reasonable person would not do this

Thus, part of the duty of care when driving
is to not obstruct your vision
 REASONABLE PERSON’S TEST
Although the reasonable man test is applied equally to all similar
individuals, the standard of care varies from circumstance to
circumstance. Consider the following examples

T, a trucker, is transporting a truck full of water from Boston to New York.

During the trip the water spills out onto the highway. In an action for
negligence against T, the jury is trying to determine whether the water
was packed onto the truck carefully enough.

T, a trucker, is transporting toxic waste from Boston to New York. During

the trip, the toxic waste spills out onto the highway. In an action for
negligence against T, the jury is trying to determine whether the toxic
waste was packed onto the truck carefully enough

In both cases the trucker is transporting a substance from Boston to New

York. In both cases liability will hinge on whether those substances
were packed onto the truck carefully enough.
 CIRCUMSTANCES MATTER
Emergency situations: Certain behaviour that is not acceptable in
ordinary situations will be acceptable in emergency situations. See Rivera
v. New York Transit Authority, 77 N.Y.2d 322 (1991)

Custom: is admissible as evidence If the defendant can show that he

acted within accepted common practice for the industry, it may help him
because a court, knowing that defendant acted within common industry
custom, might be hesitant to rule against defendant and force an entire
industry to change the way it practices. See Levine v. Russell Blaine
Co., 273 N.Y. 386 (1937). Conversely, showing that defendant acted
against industry custom would be helpful to the plaintiff.

Compliance with, or in violation of, a statute can be used as evidence

of negligence. See Clinkscales v. Carver, 22 Cal.2d 72 (1943). Once
again, this kind of evidence will be admissible but not conclusive. The
standard used in such a case is still the reasonable man standard.
Therefore, it is possible that the defendant can be found liable for
negligence even if he acted in compliance with a statute.
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 3 PRINCIPLES.
The Principles developed from 3 cases,
CASE 1: DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
ISSUE: When does duty exist and to whom?
❑ Lord Taken established the ‘neighbour principle’ as a 2
part test for determining existence of duty in negligence.
❑ Reasonable foreseeability, A duty of care is owed by a
defendant for all acts or omissions which can/ought to
have reasonably foreseen would cause injury.
Proximity: Crucially, a “neighbour” is defined broadly by
Lord Atkin as any “persons who are so closely and
directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have
them in contemplated as being affected”
 ANNE V MERTON ( 2 STAGE TEST)
ISSUE: When does duty exist and to whom?
FACTS; The local authority failed to ensure building work
correctly followed the plans, resulting in shallow foundations.
The building had changed many owners until the claimant
started to notice cracks appearing. The builders had gone
out of business, so the claimant sued the local authority.
The test set out by Donoghue v Stevenson was simplified
with the case of Ann’s v Merton.
This new test searched for a duty of care based on proximity
of the two parties, rather than basing it upon previous cases.
This is unless there is any reasons for the defendant to not
be liable, such as policy reasons including floodgates or
taxpayer money. Proximity is regarded in a legal sense, how
much each party affects each other, rather than a physical
one.
Anne V Merton ( 2 Stage Test)
Lord Wilberforce's verdict and 2-tier test
developed some areas of law significantly, such as
pure economic loss and nervous shock.

Unfortunately the test could be seen to open the

floodgates, as a duty of care could be held to
apply in nearly every case unless good reasons
were discouraging it. It was not long until criticism
came, and eventually a new test to decide liability.
 TODAY’S 3 PART- TEST
Caparo v Dickman and the current 3-part test.

Facts :The claimants were shareholders who decided to buy

more shares in a company as a takeover bid. They decided to
do this based on audited accounts prepared by the defendant
sowing a large profit. After a successful take-over they
realised the audits were wrong and should have showed a
loss.
House of Lords decided the auditors owed no duty of care,
as the audits were not planned to influence a company
takeover, and as such cannot be relied upon. This case is
featured more importantly later on, in relation to negligent
misstatement. However it is still highly important in setting up
the current test.
The House of Lords used it to introduce the 3-part test:
 3 PART- TEST
Was the damage foreseeable?;
was there a sufficiently close relationship between the two
parties?;
and is it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
_____________________
FORESEABILITY
What is Foreseeability?
Means whether a hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ would have
foreseen damage in the circumstances. The foreseeability test
basically asks whether the person causing the injury
should have reasonably foreseen the general
consequences that would result because of his or her
conduct.
The courts have to ask, whether a reasonable person in the
defendant's position wound have foreseen risk of damage e.g.
Langley V Dray:
Limitations in Foreseeability: The law usually limits the
scope of liability based upon the foreseeability of the type of the
harm and the manner of the harm, potential victims, but not the
extent of the harm. In this section, we'll explain the distinctions.
Liability for Unforeseeable Victim/Claimant
In order for a duty to exist, it must be reasonably foreseeable
that damage wound be caused to a particular victim or to a
class of people to which he or she belongs, rather than just
people in general, duty is owed to a person, category of
persons and not people generally. The question is whether
the plaintiff was foreseeable.
In Palgrav V Long Island Railroad: The victim does not have
to be an identifiable particular person who might foreseeably
affected by their actions, it is sufficient if the person is part of
people who might be foreseeably be affected e.g.,
●Haley V London Electricity Board, 1965
3 Unforeseeable Type of Harm ( Not any
harm).
A person who causes injury to another is not liable if the
type of harm does not foreseeably flow from the
negligent act. Is the type of harm complained of foreseable?
For example, if Damon drops a glass bottle on the floor and
does not clean it up, Damon would be liable for the injuries
caused to anyone who cut themselves on the glass. However,
if a freak fire is somehow caused by sunlight that is magnified
through the broken glass, it is arguable that :
Damon would not be liable for injuries caused by the fire
because they are not a foreseeable type of harm that would
flow from the negligent act. In other words, a fire is not a
foreseeable result that might stem from leaving shards of
glass on the ground.
[Link] Manner of Harm.
A person who causes injury to another is not liable for a
superseding/ intervening cause when the superseding cause
itself was not foreseeable.
A superseding act breaks the causal chain between the
initial negligent act and the injury. That typically means the
person who committed the initial negligent act will be relieved
of liability.
For example, if Daniel left a candle burning in his apartment
while he was at work, and, subsequently, a burglar broke into
his apartment and knocked the candle over, burning down the
entire building, Daniel would likely not be liable for injuries
sustained because the burglar was an unforeseeable,
superseding cause. In reality, the issue would be argued by
both sides of the case—the people who suffered losses from
the fire arguing that the burglar's presence was foreseeable,
and Daniel arguing that it was not.
Other examples of superseding causes that
are usually deemed unforeseeable:
• acts of God (i.e., earthquakes)
• criminal acts of third persons (i.e., burglary), and
• intentional torts of third persons (i.e., assault, battery, false
imprisonment).
Examples of superseding causes that are typically
deemed foreseeable (so that the defendant does not
escape liability):
4. The "Eggshell Skull" Rule. The eggshell skull rule states
that you take your victim as you find them. So, if the accident
described above would normally only cause a few thousand
dollars' worth of harm, but Paula suffers from a rare bone
disease and requires over $100,000 in medical treatment as
a result of the accident, Dallas is liable for the full nature and
extent of the injuries suffered by Paula in the accident.
2. PROXIMITY
Proximity refers to closeness between the defendant and
claimant. This can be in terms of time, space and/or
relationship. It doesn’t mean that the parties should know
each other but the situation they were both in meant that the
defendant could reasonably foresee that his actions could
damage the claimant
In Bourhill v Young, the defendant caused a road accident.
the pregnant claimant was not present at the time, but arrived
soon after. The shock she experienced cause her to miscarry.
Since there was no proximity, the defendant was found not to
be liable for the miscarriage.
In Caparo V Dickman , Hill v Chief Constable of Western
Yorkshire/ no proximity
Ways of establishing Proximity;
a) Special relationships ;
b) Contracts: e. g Transbie V Troman
e) Relationships arising from what the people had said or
done
[Link] JUST AND REASONABLE
❑ The court uses its discretion in deciding whether or not
to impose a duty based on policy considerations
❑ What is fair just or reasonable is a question of fact that is
determined case by case basis
❑ Example: In XA v YA, the court decided that it is not fair just
or reasonable to impose a duty on a mother who could not
prevent assaults on her son.
❑ In Hemmens v Wilson Browne: It is not fair just or
reasonable to impose a duty where it was possible to remedy
the situation without imposing a duty
❑ IMPORTANCE OF POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
❑ In the past, public policy reasons have been used to protect
certain groups from liability in negligence thereby giving them
immunity from suits e.g., Police, fire services, & other public
services
 Currently, the HRA 1998 and rules of negligence, has
narrowed down the protections, however, the immunities
exists in the interest of the public to enable these bodies or
groups to go about their businesses without the threat of being
sued.
The main policy reasons that the courts rely on are:
- The defendant might assume a defensive approach to their
work or provision at the public’s expense
A liability in tort would undermine the protections already
provided under common law
Financial reasons; Liability in negligence might mean
diverting financial resources from the public to a small
number of successful claimants
Floodgates especially if the tort is a relatively new one
‘Crushing liability’: Liability for large sums of money in
compensation that it would be unfair or economically
inefficient for the defendant to meet
Effects in distributive justice: Increase in insurance
premiums