Trespass to Land

Card Set Information

Author:
kayka148
ID:
151304
Filename:
Trespass to Land
Updated:
2012-04-30 22:30:02
Tags:
league against cruel sports scoot mayfair pears
Folders:

Description:
Intent requirement and foreseeability
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user kayka148 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. What level of intent is required for the law of trespass?
    • The defendant needs to intent to do the act that constitutes the trespass (e.g. walking on to someone's land)
    • She does not need to intend to trespass (she does not need to know that her actions would constitute a trespass).
    • In other the act that constitutes a trespass must be voluntary.
  2. League Againts Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott
    • Need voluntary act plus some kind of likelihood that a trespass will occur as a result.
    • Liable to trespass if:
    • 1-) the intended to cause the hounds to enter such land OR
    • 2-) his failure to exercise proper control over them caused them to enter such a land
  3. Mayfair v Pears
    Facts
    • Pears parked his car illegally in a private car parking. His car exploded for no apparent reason
    • The trespass was a causa sine qua non of unforeseeable damage to property
    • Other than the original trespass, the defendant was not at fault in anyway
  4. Mayfair v Pears
    Cooke P considered the following factors
    • The damage was unintentional
    • Lack of negligence
    • The trespass not causing the fire (the causal link between the wrong and the harm is not immediate)
    • The damage being economic
    • It is customary to cover buildings with insurance (dont put as much weight on this)
    • Damage was not foreseeable
    • Considering all these factors, it would be unjust to impose liability on the defendant.
  5. Mayfair v Pears
    What is the latin phrase for the following 'cause without which it (the damage) would not have happened'
    causa sine qua non
  6. Mayfair v Pears
    If the damage is causa sine qua non, the tortfeasor is not otherwise at fault which means that
    the link between the damage and the trespass is not especially direct
  7. Mayfair v Pears
    means that the defendant who does not intend to cause damage may
    • perhaps not be liable for non-foreseeable damage following from his actions.
    • Trespassers will not be necessarily held liable for all damage that would not have occured but for the trespass-defendants should only be liable for the damage that is reasonably foreseeable
    • (but why should the owner bare the loss caused by someone who should not have been on his land?)
  8. Definitive Rule
    Trespassers should trespass on the property of others at their peril (liable for all the damages that ensue)

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview