Search

When Oliver Wendell Holmes synthesized the writs of trespass and trespass on the case, he left out of his gloss of modern accident law an extremely important part, namely, the strict liability that everyone faces for routine errors, such as failing to check one’s blind spot before changing lanes. One proof of how poorly the language of negligence fits the strict liability that actually exists for routine “compliance errors” is the debate among legal historians about whether the modern tort rule governing accidents is less strict than the classical English rule. As I develop in the article, the modern accident rule is, in reality, strikingly similar to the ancient accident rule. Holmes’s neglect of the strict liability component of the modern negligence rule has hindered our understanding of both it and the classical accident rule. When we see clearly what the strict-liability component of the modern negligence rule is, it opens a new window on negligence theory.

Claims against police for psychiatric injury suffered as a consequence of conduct of investigations and performance of duties* 1. Introduction In 2002, McCullough and Palmer published a report to the Criminology Research Council, Civil Litigation by citizens against Australian police between 1994 and 2002 . The introduction to the report says: "There appears to be an emerging trend towards greater resort to civil litigation against police, combined with a definite trend to substantially larger judgements in favour of plaintiffs. Judicial benevolence towards questionable police practices has diminished and successful civil actions against the police are on the increase (Dixon 1997: 146). According to the Australian Torts Reporter, 'police are now, as never before, becoming targets of civil actions against them by aggrieved citizens' (2000 35-070: 43,072)". As to why the number of claims against police has been increasing, the researchers conclude: "There are a number of factors underlying the increasing significance of civil litigation. All interviewees agreed that greater access to justice through 'no win, no fee' arrangements, increased awareness about rights amongst community members, greater damages awards, and the snowball effect of publicity about successful actions contribute to the increased resort to civil litigation by aggrieved citizens. However, lawyers tended to characterise any increase in civil litigation positively in terms of greater access to justice, and public good in terms of enhanced police accountability, whereas police tended to emphasise the negative impact of litigation in terms of police morale and the drain on public funds. Lawyers linked resort to civil litigation to what they perceived to be lack of effective alternative means of police accountability, while police employees saw no or little connection between other accountability mechanisms and civil litigation, and expressed concern that police were any ‘easy target’ often being sued for 'just doing their job'." The researchers investigated various civil actions in tort against police officers including breach of statutory duty, malicious prosecution, assault, battery and trespass to the person, trespass to land, trespass to goods, Lord Campbell's action, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, false arrest, intimidation and negligence . In this paper it is proposed to limit the discussion to a consideration of recent claims against the police which have been brought in negligence and trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment).

Examines the Texas Supreme Court’s case Bounds v. Caudle. In Bounds, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s finding of wrongful death on the basis of the Texas doctrine of interspousal immunity for willful or intentional torts. The Court in the instant case abolished the Texas interspousal immunity rule insofar as it protected the spouse against such claims. The author comments that this case is welcomed by many in the legal profession.