| 词条 | Letang v Cooper |
| 释义 |
|name = Letang v Cooper |court = Court of Appeal |image = File:S_S_Jaguar_drophead_coupe_1940_(8679189922).jpg |imagesize = 200 |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = A Jaguar motor car |full name = Doreen Ann Letang v Frank Anthony Cooper |date decided = 15 June 1964 |citations = [1965] 1 QB 232 [1964] EWCA Civ 5 [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep 339 [1964] 2 All ER 929 |transcripts = BAILII transcript |judges = Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ and Danckwerts LJ |number of judges = 3 |decision by = |concurring = |dissenting = |concur/dissent = |prior actions = |appealed from = |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = Negligence, personal injury, trespass to the person |italic title = }}{{Cite bailii|litigants=Letang v Cooper|year=1964|court=EWCA|division=Civ|num=5|date=15 June 1964}} is an English Court of Appeal judgment, by which it was decided that negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead. FactsMr Cooper (the defendant) negligently ran over Mrs Letang (the plaintiff) in his Jaguar motor car while she was sunbathing on a piece of grass where cars were parked. The plaintiff filed a claim in trespass to the person, because the claim in negligence was time-barred. Trespass to the person is a tort involving wrongful direct interference with another person and traditionally included both intentional and negligent acts. JudgmentThe Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ and Danckwerts LJ, held unanimously that since Mr Cooper's actions were negligent rather than intentional, the statute of limitations barring claims actions for damage caused by negligence applied. Mrs Letang could not recover her damages because her claim was late. EffectThe effect of this case was that an action for trespass to the person can now only be brought for intentional torts, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land or chattels, etc. A claimant wishing to recover damages to his person or property that were caused by the defendant's negligent action must prove all the elements of the tort of negligence. However the decision did not affect actions for trespass to goods. Conversion is still a strict liability tort under English law, and recover does not depend upon establishing negligence. Lord Denning summarised the change: {{cquote|Under the old law, whenever one man injured another by the direct and immediate application of force, the plaintiff could sue the defendant in trespass to the person, without alleging negligence (see Leame v. Bray, in 1803, 3 East, 593), whereas if the injury was only consequential, he had to sue in case. You will remember the illustration given by Mr Justice Fortescue in Reynolds v. Clarke, in 1726 (1 Strange, 634):-"If a man throws a log into the highway and in that act it hits me, I may maintain trespass because it is an immediate wrong; but if, as it lies there, I tumble over it and receive an injury, I must bring an action upon the case because it is only prejudicial in consequence". Nowadays, if a man carelessly throws a piece of wood from a house into a roadway, then whether it hits the plaintiff or he tumbles over it the next moment, the action would not be trespass or case, but simply negligence.}} See also
External links
6 : English tort case law|Lord Denning cases|1964 in British law|Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases|1964 in case law|English trespass case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。