The Tort Law

The tort law refers to a body of obligations, rights and remedies that is put into practice by the courts in civil proceedings in order to provide relief for individuals who have been harmed as a result of the wrongful acts of others. In these laws, the plaintiff is the individual who has had the suffering secondary to tortuous conduct.[1] On the other hand, the tortfeasor is the person who has inflicted the damage of injury. This person is also called the defendant. In every tort action, the plaintiff should establish that the defendant was to act in a given fashion under a legal duty. Similarly, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the tortfeasor failed to conform to his or her behavior by breaching of duty. On the same line, he or she should prove to have suffered injury secondary to the defendant’s breach. The tort claims mainly involve the state. The laws are on a legal premise that people are liable for their conduct’s consequences, especially if the results are injury and harm (McCarthy & Cambron-McCabe, 1992).[2] Over the last century, the laws have touched many as

The Need for the HRA

The need for the human rights started with the effects of the World War II, which led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.[3][4]. The HRA supplies standards in addition to advancing legal accountability in regard to violation of the human rights and freedoms. This Convention contributes to a healthy, ethical foundation not only for political, but also for constitutional decision-making. Due to injustices in the society, the UK saw a need to come up with the legislation in order to protect everyone. That legal piece of work was to see that every person, despite the circumstance, should be treated fairly, equally and with dignity.

The HRA 1998

The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 came into existence in 1998. Its major aim was to bring the rights home. It helps the UK nationals to rely on the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) before the local courts. Although this piece of legislation isn’t universally popular, it has had a lot of impacts. while in the local courts. Article 8 ECHR has provisions that a person should have the right to respect for his or her private and family life. More so, there has to be no interference of this right by a public authority except in accordance with the laws, which are available. The article is responsible for the interest of the national security, protection of health and morals, rights and freedoms and prevention of public safety in addition to the country’s economic well-being. The Court of Appeal ascertained that the article can be accepted and used when the plaintiff is affected by a planning decision among others.[5]

In article 1 of Protocol 1 in the ECHR, there is a clear guideline that covers the protection of property in addition to peaceful enjoyment of available possessions. This article reads that every legal or natural person has the right to enjoy his possessions peacefully. No person can be deprived this except in the interest of the public and subject to the conditions brought into place by the law and the general principles of the international law. The protocol further reads that the preceding provisions shall not in any way impair the State’s right to enforce such laws. In general, an individual’s rights under the article aren’t absolute. There are many restrictions on the rights, but they must be lawful, balanced and have a legitimate aim. A good example is the case of Huang v. Secretary of State. In this case, the House of Lords stated that the approach is that need to balance the interests of individual and groups with those of the society. That is an aspect that no one can overlook.[6]

Implementation of the HRA

The HRA has had numerous impacts on some cases that have been held using the same legislation in making judicial judgments. The implementation of the legislation piece has seen many cases go through the judicial system. Most of the cases have involved[7] In the UK, the Act has been used to solve some of the cases in which the universal rights and freedoms of the plaintiff have been compromised in one way or the other. Through this, the law has promoted or positively impacted the tort law.

Peck v United Kingdom (2003)

This case involved a man who was suffering from depression and one of the UK local authority.[8]

Connors v United Kingdom (2004)

The case involved a family in the UK and a certain council.[9]. This family cited that their eviction was a violation of their right of enjoying their home. This right is in the HRA article 8. The European Court of Human Rights concluded that, the right to have respect for their home was breached. According to the court, the legal framework that applies to the occupation of the pitches on sites of the local authority failed to provide them with enough procedural protection of rights. Since the family was a vulnerable group of the society, it could have been given special considerations in regard to their nomadic lifestyle and needs. The court saw that any form of interference that could render them homeless was unjustifiable unless otherwise. They could only be rendered homeless if the public interest grounds were weighty enough. However, the court found that such grounds in this case were missing. In this case, the court followed the HRA in protecting the family’s right to have and enjoy a home. The implementation of this piece of legislation impacted heavily on the tort laws because the family had suffered from their rights violations, but the court restored them. That means that the council couldn’t do such a thing again, hence upholding the human rights.

Fadeyeva v. Russia

Pollution can also be a source of the violation of the human rights in article 8. In this case, the plaintiff used to live in a flat of the council, which was near a steel plant.[10] The plant always went beyond the maximum pollution levels. The plaintiff decided to ask the authorities for relocation. She was on a list of waiting for four years. She took the issue to the court that that plant was a big danger to her health and general well-being. The court, using the ECHR agreed that higher The case promoted the tort laws in that the person who was suffering from violation of her rights was considered, and her rights were restored.

AB, R v Secretary of State for Justice and Anor

The case involved a transsexual woman prisoner[11]. That means that in all the circumstances, she was regarded as a woman. On the other hand, the Prison Service made a decision that she was to get accommodation in the men’s prison. During the case, her lawyers were vocal, arguing that the circumstances for her accommodation didn’t allow her overt wearing of feminine clothes. They further argued that their client was prevented from free socialization with fellow women among many other things. The David Elvin, the deputy judge at that moment, concluded that detaining the woman in the male prison her rights of having privacy and family life as spelled in the ECHR.[12] The court said that accommodating the prisoner in a male client was costly. In fact, the woman had an objective of going for a gender reassignment surgery. The court further concluded that she was to have a transfer to a women’s prison. As long as she was in the male prison, she couldn’t go for the surgery. In general, the court allowed the woman to enjoy her rights as per the ECHR, which is in line with the tort laws. Her rights were violated, but the court restored them. She could now go on to enjoy her privacy and social life in a place that she could meet her fellow women.

Case of a Journalist and a Peaceful Protester

In 2003, a peaceful protestor together with a journalist was stopped by the police before being searched.[13]se of violating the right of both the journalist and the peaceful protestor a private life.

Deductions from the Case Examples

There were numerous things that used to happen, which were violating the human rights that are spelled in the HRA. However, with the implementation of the rights, many areas in the society have been impacted in different ways. Some of the violations have been forced to cease because they aren’t legally right. The HRA is in line with the tort laws since any person who suffers from the acts of another party should be compensated, or the violations can come to an end. Peck v United Kingdom case in 2003 impacted on the information sector that includes the media. Any individual, as from this case has a right to privacy. That means that no one should take films or pictures and expose them to the public without the consent. That should be done in line with the ethical and moral practices at hand. On the other hand, the Connors v United Kingdom (2004) case impacted on the tort laws in that no one vulnerable group can be mistreated because of their circumstances. From such, it is clear that whenever some authority evicts people from their premises, it should put the human rights at hand. On the same line, Fadeyeva v. Russia case revealed that any plant can be a nuisance to the residents when it comes to pollution. In such a case, the way the law was implemented encourages appropriate plants to observe the rights of those in the neighborhoods.

More so, the case that involved the transsexual prisoner gave gender issues a huge boost. That means that a person who is legally confirmed to be of a particular gender can only be detained, among other people of the same gender. The implementation of the ECHR by the court meant that if that is not the case, then human rights violation becomes the ultimate end. Finally, the way the case of the journalist and the peaceful protestor was handled, changed the way the Terrorism Act 2000 in Section 44 acts. The Act was found to violate the human rights as spelled in the ECHR and the HRA. Due to that, the law was turned off because of giving the Human Rights Act 1998 a priority. The police officers were denied the right to do a forceful search the way the Terrorism Act 2000 spells out.

Conclusion

Tort laws are in place to help the people who have suffered because of other peoples’ illegal acts. These laws are enforced by the judiciary system of which the courts are no exception. In the HRA, the human rights are clearly spelled out. Although no one individual has the right to violate another individual’s human rights, such occurrences have b world as a whole.

Bibliography

AB, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor (2010) 11 BMLR 70, [2010] 2 All ER 151, [2009] HRLR 35, [2009] EWHC 2220 (Admin)

Alan C, A Revisionist History of Tort Law. (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press 2003)

Fadeyeva v Russia, 55723/00 [2005] ECHR 376 (9 June 2005)

Grosz S, Human Rights. The 1998 Act and The European Convention. (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London 2000).

Klug, Francesca, 1999: The Human Rights Act 1998, Pepper v. Hart and All That, Public Law, Summer, pp. 246-273.

McCarthy, M. M. & Cambron-McCabe, N. H. (1992). Public school Law: Teachers’ and student’s rights (3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1992)

Merris A, Human rights law. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014).

PECK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 44647/98, 13 BHRC 669, [2003] ECHR 44, [2003] Info TLR 221, [2003] EMLR 15, (2003) 36 EHRR 719, (2003) 13 BHRC 669, (2003) 36 EHRR 41, 36 EHRR 41

Russell B, “A REVISIONIST HISTORY OF TORT LAW: FROM HOLMESIAN REALISM TO NEOCLASSICAL RATIONALISM, ALAN CALNAN (DURHAM, NC: CAROLINA ACADEMIC PRESS, 2005).” [2006] 43 ALR 1069

Steele J, DAMAGES IN TORT AND UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: REMEDIAL OR FUNCTIONAL SEPARATION? (2008) 67 CLJ 606

Sweeney, James A. “Margins of Appreciation: Cultural Relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era.” [2005] 54 ICLQ 459

The Order giving effect to the Human Rights Act 1998:2000 No. 1851 (C. 47), The Human Rights Act 1998 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2000.

[1] Jenny Steele, ‘DAMAGES IN TORT AND UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: REMEDIAL OR FUNCTIONAL SEPARATION?’ (2008) 67 CLJ, 606

[2] McCarthy, M. & Cambron-McCabe, N. ‘Public school Law: Teachers’ and student’s rights (3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 1992)

[3] Klug, Francesca, 1999: The Human Rights Act 1998, Pepper v. Hart and All That, Public Law, Summer, pp. 246-273.

[4] Grosz, Stephen ‘Human Rights. The 1998 Act and The European Convention’ (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London 2000).

[5] Re Stewart’s Application [2003] NI 149, para 26

[6] Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, para 19

[7] The Order giving effect to the Human Rights Act 1998:2000 No. 1851 (C. 47), The Human Rights Act 1998 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2000.

[8]  PECK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 44647/98 [2003] ECHR 44 (28 January 2003)

[9] Grosz S, Human Rights. The 1998 Act and The European Convention. (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London 2004)

[10] Fadeyeva v. Russia [2005] ECHR 376

[11] Amos, Merris. Human rights law (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014)

[12]  AB, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2009] EWHC 2220 (Admin) (04 September 2009)

[13] Sweeney, James A. “Margins of Appreciation: Cultural Relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era.” [2005] 54 ICLQ 459

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW