Tort Law: An Overview of Principles

Disclaimer: This article has been written by Renata M Barnes, a current Law Student. The content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, readers should seek professional legal advice before relying on any information contained herein. Neither the author nor the publisher accepts any liability for actions taken based on this article.

🔊 Listen to Post

Human Rights and Challenges for Vulnerable Communities

Tort law is a central branch of civil law, concerned with providing remedies to individuals who have suffered harm due to the wrongful acts of others. It aims not only to compensate victims but also to regulate conduct and deter future harm. The law of tort encompasses multiple doctrines, including negligence, nuisance, trespass, defamation, and occupiers’ liability, while also intersecting with human rights law in significant ways. For people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, tort law is both a shield and, at times, a missed safeguard. The complexities of corporate conduct, social housing disputes, and unequal access to justice highlight the urgent need to reassess how tort law interacts with fundamental rights.

The Nature and Function of Tort Law

Tort law operates as a mechanism for civil redress where criminal law or statutory frameworks may not apply. Its main objectives include:

1. Compensation: Restoring victims, as far as possible, to their original position (damages).
2. Deterrence: Discouraging wrongful or negligent behaviour.
3. Justice: Providing accountability for wrongdoing.
4. Loss Distribution: Spreading the cost of harm through mechanisms such as insurance.

As Cane observes, tort is “an instrument of corrective justice,” aimed at rectifying the imbalance caused by wrongful acts, though its effectiveness is limited where vulnerable individuals lack the means to litigate.¹

Elements of Tort Law

Negligence

The tort of negligence is the most developed branch, requiring proof of duty of care, breach, causation, and damage. Following Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, the “neighbour principle” extended liability to those who ought reasonably to foresee harm from their actions.

Nuisance

Private and public nuisance protect interests in land and public rights. Excessive noise, pollution, or interference with quiet enjoyment of property, such as in social housing estates, may amount to an actionable nuisance.² For disabled people, even minor disturbances may disproportionately affect health, exacerbating conditions like multiple sclerosis or anxiety disorders.

Trespass

Trespass to land, goods, or the person protects autonomy and property rights. Assault and battery, though actionable per se, may be difficult for vulnerable claimants to pursue without legal aid.

Defamation

Defamation law safeguards reputation, though access to justice is limited by the high costs of litigation. Vulnerable individuals subject to harassment or bullying may lack effective remedies.

Occupiers’ Liability

The Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 extend duties to visitors and, in some cases, trespassers. This is critical in public housing or shared spaces, where landlords owe a duty of care to ensure premises are reasonably safe.

Psychiatric Harm

Although recovery for psychiatric harm has expanded, the courts remain cautious.³ For those with pre-existing conditions, such as OCD or PTSD, the challenge of proving recognisable psychiatric injury exacerbated by negligence is considerable.

Tort Law and Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law, influencing tort claims. Articles particularly relevant include:

• Article 2 (Right to Life): Relevant in negligence involving fatal accidents.
• Article 3 (Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment): Where authorities fail to protect vulnerable individuals from harm, e.g., social housing conditions.
• Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial): Essential for access to justice.
• Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life, Home, and Correspondence): Engaged in nuisance, housing disputes, and surveillance cases.

In Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245, the European Court of Human Rights held that blanket immunities for public authorities in negligence claims could violate Article 6. For disabled individuals facing institutional neglect, the HRA strengthens tort remedies.

Challenges for People with Disabilities

People with disabilities face unique barriers in accessing tort remedies:

• Knowledge Gap: Many are unaware of their rights or the availability of redress.
• Accessibility: Physical, cognitive, and financial barriers limit access to legal advice and courts.
• Disproportionate Harm: Nuisances, harassment, or unsafe housing may cause greater harm to disabled individuals than to others.
• Stigma and Bullying: Corporate or institutional environments may foster cultures of psychopathy and bullying, with victims often unable to pursue claims due to fear of retaliation.

Social housing tenants, many of whom are disabled or otherwise vulnerable, frequently encounter issues such as damp, structural hazards, and neglectful landlords. Courts have recognised that poor housing conditions may infringe Article 8 rights, yet many tenants are unaware of potential tort or human rights remedies.

Corporate Bullying and Psychopathy

Tort law also interacts with organisational misconduct. Corporate bullying, often driven by individuals with psychopathic traits, can manifest in harassment, intimidation, or deliberate infliction of economic harm. The tort of intentional infliction of harm (Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57) remains narrow, but there is increasing recognition that abuse of power in corporate contexts should attract liability. Vulnerable employees, contractors, or tenants may lack both the knowledge and resources to challenge such conduct effectively.

The Vulnerability of the Uninformed

One of the most pressing challenges in tort law is that many individuals—particularly the disabled, economically disadvantaged, or socially excluded—are unaware of their rights. As Lord Bingham remarked, “the law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky but a practical instrument of justice.”⁴ Yet justice remains elusive for those who cannot navigate the system. Legal literacy campaigns, pro bono initiatives, and community-based advocacy are essential to bridge this gap.

Conclusion

Tort law is a cornerstone of civil justice, providing remedies across a spectrum of wrongful conduct. However, its protective reach is uneven. People with disabilities, social housing tenants, and other vulnerable groups often fall through the cracks due to systemic inequalities, limited access to justice, and corporate misconduct. The intersection of tort law and human rights offers a pathway to greater accountability, yet much depends on making the law accessible, affordable, and responsive to those who need it most. In an era of widening inequality, tort law must evolve to address both traditional wrongs and emerging forms of harm, particularly for the vulnerable.

References

1. Peter Cane, Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law (8th edn, CUP 2013).
2. St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HL Cas 642.
3. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310.
4. Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (Penguin 2010).
5. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).
6. Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245.
7. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57.
8. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
9. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
10. Human Rights Act 1998.

No Win No Fee!