Fowler v Lanning

Ratio Decidendi

حقائق

The plaintiff's statement of claim alleged simply that on a stated date and at a shooting party 'the defendant shot the plaintiff', and claimed damages for the resulting personal injuries. It gave no particulars indicating whether the shooting was intentional or negligent, and did not allege negligence. The defendant objected that, so pleaded, the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action.

فیصلے کا خلاصہ

Diplock J held that the statement of claim, which merely asserted that 'the defendant shot the plaintiff' without alleging either intention or negligence, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and required the plaintiff to deliver particulars on pain of the claim being struck out. In a modern action for trespass to the person arising from an unintended act, the burden of proving fault lies on the claimant: they must plead and prove either that the defendant acted intentionally or that the injury was caused by the defendant's negligence. The old rule under which a defendant had to disprove fault in a direct-injury trespass no longer applied. Since the plaintiff had pleaded neither intention nor negligence, the claim as framed could not succeed. The decision, together with Letang v Cooper, marks the modern position that fault is an essential ingredient of trespass to the person for unintended injury.

اہم اقتباسات

بعد کا علاج