REVIEWS
| Date | 01 March 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1992.tb01880.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1992 |
REVIEWS
Fridman on
Torts,
London: Waterlow Publishers, 1990,
lxxx
+
592 pp and index,
hb
f85.00.
Charlesworth
&
Percy on Negligence
(8th ed), London: Sweet
&
Maxwell, 1990,
clix
+
1190 pp and index, hb f135.00.
The law of tort is a subject which is, generally speaking, well-served by textbooks.
Charlesworth
&
Percy already enjoys an established reputation among legal practi-
tioners for its detailed exposition of the tort of negligence. But Fridman is a new
arrival on the English textbook scene. This raises some immediate questions. Why
has the book been published? What is distinctive about it? Both of these questions
are, unfortunately, very difficult to answer.
Some good things can be said about the book. It is comprehensive
in
the sense
that
it
encompasses all the torts and even extends its coverage to some doubtful
torts, such as breach of confidence and privacy. The book also contains a number
of useful references to Canadian authority, especially at the various points at which
English and Canadian tort law differ (for example, whether one needs to have an
interest
in
land to be able to bring a claim
in
private nuisance (p 194) and
in
the
general approach to the question of which statutes
in
their breach give rise to a
cause of action
in
tort (p 446)).
But
the weaknesses of the book far outweigh its strengths. One of the principal
shortcomings of Fridman lies
in
its treatment of statutes. This is best illustrated
in
the treatment given to Part
I
of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is
relegated (at p 372) to a footnote (and even then Part
I
is wrongly classified as a
statute which creates ‘offences’). Yet the Act constitutes one of the most important
developments in the law of tort
in
this country for decades. The purpose of the Act
is to introduce a regime of strict liability for defective products and thereby to remedy
the deficiencies
in
the old fault-based common law rules. And yet, Professor Fridman
somehow manages to include the Act as a footnote
in
a chapter entitled ‘some varieties
of negligence’! The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is not the only statute to be the
subject of such demeaning treatment. Section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989
(which was on the statute book but not
in
force at the time of publication) enacts
major changes
in
relation to the recovery of social security benefits paid to plaintiffs,
but was not thought to be worthy of a mention. The Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977 is also given rather short shrift (at p 396).
The whole tenor of the book is dated. For example, the chapter on contributory
negligence contains a longer discussion of the old common law rule than
it
does
of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The book is also very
expensive. At f85
it
cannot be intended as a student textbook, and yet its failure
to deal with modern statutory (and other) developments makes
it
an unreliable tool
for the practitioner.
In
short, there are many better books elsewhere and
it
is very
difficult to envisage Professor Fridman’s book making any lasting contribution to
our understanding of English tort law.
Charlesworth
&
Percy, as one would expect, is a much stronger book. The
exposition of the law is careful and generally accurate. Unfortunately,
it
was written
before the decision of the House of Lords in
Muphy
v
Brentwood District
Council
[
19911
1
AC 398, and
so
requires some major updating. Unlike Professor Fridman,
the editor is aware of the enormous significance of Part
I
of the Consumer Protection
Act 1987, and the chapter on product liability has
been
carefully rewritten and moved
309
To continue reading
Request your trial