tortious liability

Included, however, are those of a criminal enterprise, which would not attract tortious liability in the civil law.

This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability.

An employer can incur tortious liability in respect of his employees in one of three ways.

Apart from proof that there was no breach of duty, there are three principal defenses to tortious liability.

Here the discussion is confined to more general types of tortious liability, such as that arising from negligent acts or omissions.

However, tortious liability is notoriously difficult to predict, and a contract is much less likely to give rise to wasteful disputes.

(This applies only to the expert's tortious liability to the party with whom he has no contractual relationship: see 14.11.2.)

In principle, the tortious liability runs in parallel to liability in contract.

This is a wider scope than usual tortious liability, as it protects the claimant's loss even if not reasonably foreseeable.

The nature of the contract, contractual and tortious liabilities and the use of exclusion clauses will be considered.

In other words, the 'harm to interests' theory suppresses rules about privity of contract and the distinction between contractual and tortious liability.

Far-reaching controls on attempts to exclude contractual and tortious liability were introduced by UCTA 1977.

The leading case on tortious liability for negligent advice, referred to as negligent misstatement, is Hedley Byrne & Co.

Administrative liability in English Law is an area of law concerning the tortious liability of public bodies in English law.

The case may be different from Chapman v. Honig in that the contempt involved was civil not criminal but it is not easy to see why this should point towards tortious liability.

The assets of the business are owned on behalf of the other partners, and they are each personally liable, jointly and severally, for business debts, taxes or tortious liability.

Although this regulation of tortious liability is not of itself a contractual issue, there are some situations where it has great importance for business contracts, for instance in the area of pre-contract negotiations.

Under English and Welsh law, in cases where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her act or omission (as in nuisance).

There are three main defences to tortious liability are to argue the claimant voluntarily undertook the risk of his harm, that he contributed to the harm, or that he engaged in illegal activity.

When a state criminal statute is violated in the course of performing an assertedly negligent act, under certain circumstances a court may adopt the statute as establishing a standard of care for tortious liability as well.

Finally, the common law contained areas of tortious liability for interference with family and service relationships which were based upon the archaic idea that a man had a proprietary interest in the services of his family and his servants.

At present an employer's tortious liability for the safety of his employees may take one of three forms:(a) The employer may be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee which leads to the plaintiff employee being injured.

In fact, the law of State X is the lex loci contractus and the most appropriate law since everything relevant to the potential tortious liability occurred in that state which has the greatest interest in maintaining consumer confidence in the motor trade.

In one respect the Atkinian neighbour principle and Lord Wilberforce's opinion in Anns are similar; they both extend the boundaries of tortious liability in negligence to new areas, the former to product liability, the latter to a failure to inspect a defective building.

The Court of Appeal held that as the effect of clause 8 was to negative a tortious liability which the owner would otherwise incur to the hirer, it was an exclusion of liability, and subject to a test of reasonableness under the UCTA 1977.