Fault

Fault
Fault can be generally defined from the Oxford English Dictionary as an “error” or “blame”. In English law, fault can be best described as “taking responsibility for something wrong”. In criminal law, people are guilty, being to blame beyond reasonable doubt. In civil law, people are found liable, being to blame on the balance of probability.
Fault is generally an essential requirement of liability in the law of tort. Liability in negligence requires proof of a breach of duty. A breach of duty arises when the defendant fails to act, or not act, as the “reasonable man” would have done. In Bolton v Stone, the defendants acted as the “reasonable man” would have by erecting a high fence around the ground to minimise the risk of people outside the ground being injured by cricket balls. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council, however, the court held that, in light of the potential serious consequences posed by welding to an employee with one eye, the reasonable employer would have provided goggles. Liability under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 also requires proof of fault. Under 2.2 (2) (b) a lower duty of care is owed to people on the premises in exercise of their calling, than to other visitors. In Roles v Nathan, the occupiers were not liable when chimney sweeps died from inhaling fumes. They had warned the sweeps of the risk, and it was the responsibility of the sweeps to be aware of the danger.
Fault is also relevant to the general defence of contributory negligence. Under the Law Reform Act 1945 s.1 (1), damages are reduced according to the claimant’s responsibility for the damage. In Froom v Butcher, the claimant’s damages were reduced by 25% due to his failure to wear a seat belt.
There are, however, areas of tort in which there is no need to prove fault. For example, nuisance is a strict liability tort. The defendant cannot claim as a defence that he/she took reasonable care to avoid causing the nuisance. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is another...