Main Areas of Torts Law - R. Vrahimis & Associates

Go to content
Main Areas of Torts Law
A tort is a civil wrong that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm (e.g. injury) resulting in a liability (usually for compensation) by the tortfeasor (the person who commits the tortious act).  Torts may be divided into negligent and intentional torts.  In most cases the Plaintiff (the injured party) needs to prove that there was negligence or tortious intent by a person that was the cause of the injury.  However there are some exceptions of injuries that the Plaintiff does not need to prove negligence i.e. of strict liability nature (where no proof of wrongdoing is required) e.g. by the EU Product Liability Directive for consumers that includes what most would consider consumer goods and extends to agriculture and fishery products, refer to the consumer law here.

Intentional Torts

Classical Intentional tortuous behaviour in Cyprus may take many forms and includes:

  • Assault:  These is the direct or indirect (e.g. by heat, light, electricity, gas etc.) and intentional use of any type of force from one person against another including, hitting, touching, moving.  Attempt or threat of violence causing another a true belief to apprehend violence is also an assault.  This force must be done without the other’s consent or by fraudulently obtaining such consent.  Self-defence or the protection of property may constitute a defence as long as the force used was proportional to the danger faced.
  • False imprisonment:  This is the illegal and total deprivation of the liberty of a person for any amount of time by the use of natural means or by a show of authority.  Teachers, custodians and parents are excluded if this is done reasonably for the punishment of delinquency.
  • Malicious prosecution:  This is the initiation or continuation of unsuccessful criminal or bankruptcy proceedings done with actual, malicious and without reasonable and probable cause.  Provided that these proceedings have caused a scandal about the fidelity or reputation of the accused or his/her possible loss of liberty and in fact resulted in favour of the accused.  Giving information to a competent authority resulting in any action is not in itself malicious prosecution.
  • Illegally causing another to breach a contract:  If a person (the abettor) knowingly and without proper justification causes any another to breach his/her legally binding contract with a third person then the abettor perpetrates a tort against the third person.  This does not include persons who promote strikes in labour or employment contracts or who cause breach of f marriage “contract” (causing estrangement or divorce).
  • Unfair competition:  If a person imitates the trade name, characterization, trade mark or labeling of products, or in any other way attempts to cause any goods to be taken as goods of another person, in such a way that may make the regular customer believe that he/she is buying the goods of another person, then the imitator perpetrates a tort against that other person.
  • Fraud:  This is the misrepresentation of a fact which is made knowingly of it being false, or without belief of it being true, or recklessly, regardless of whether it was true or false, with the intention that the person that was deceived should act upon it.  The Plaintiff must prove that the misrepresentation was made to deceive him/her and that he/she acted upon that misrepresentation and suffered loss.  Misrepresentation does not involve statements about the character, behaviour, fidelity, ability, occupation or the transactions of any person for obtaining goods or credit, unless this was done in writing and was signed by the defendant.
  • Illegally withholding goods:  This is the illegal withholding of movable property from any person who is entitled to its immediate possession.  The court may order delivery of the goods to the person who is entitled to them.
  • Misappropriation:  This is an illegal act that affects movable property and founds a claim for handling this property in a manner incompatible to the rights of any person who is entitled to its immediate possession. It is a defence to show that this property was bought in good faith from a trader in similar goods in a public market or in a shop.
  • Trespassing:  This is the illegal intervention in immovable property so it can be perpetrated if a person enters, damages or interferes with the property (includes land and buildings).  It is a defence to prove that the intervention is allowed by local custom.
  • Illegal interference with movable property:  This consists of an illegal intervention, deraignment, or any illegal action from any person that directly causes damage to that property.
  • Public nuisance:  This is an illegal act or omission to execute a legal obligation that endangers the life, security, health, property or comfort of the public or hinders the public in exercising a common right.  Actions under this tort may usually be brought by local or public authorities to seek an injunction or persons can prove actual special damage.
  • Private nuisance:  This is perpetrated by a person who behaves or caries out his/her business or uses immovable property that he/she possesses (whether as an owner or not) in such a way so as to habitually interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the immovable property of another person.  The court shall take into account the position and nature of the property.  It is a defence to prove that the act was done according to the terms of any binding agreement or contract of between the tortfeasor and the Plaintiff that works in favour of the Plaintiff.  However it is no defence to allege that the nuisance existed before the Plaintiff come into possession of the property.
  • Interference to light:  This is perpetrated by a person who by blocking or by any other means prevents the enjoyment of a reasonable percentage of light by the owner or possessor of a property.  The court shall take into account the position and nature of the property as long as this owner or previous owner or possessor had a (non-contractual) continuous enjoyment of light for a period of no less than 15 years immediately prior to the blockage or prevention.

More modern intentional tortuous behaviour recognised in Cyprus by virtue of breaches of constitutionally protected human rights include:

  • Illegal invasion of privacy:  e.g. wiretapping, surveillance, phone hacking eavesdropping.
  • Infliction of mental suffering:  This is perpetrated by a person who mentally abuses or causes psychological stress or mental duress to another.
  • Misuse of private information: E.g. misusing web browser histories, misuse of personal data etc.
  • Acting to avoid execution of a judgment:  E.g. transferring property, money laundering etc.

Defamation:   This is a tort belonging both to intentional and to unintentional or negligent torts.  This is discussed in detail here.

Negligent Torts:

Negligence is not the same as recklessness or gross negligence which are a criminal-type of negligent activity and may be punished under penal laws.

Negligence is causing damage by doing an act or refraining from doing an act which a reasonable prudent person under the circumstances would not do or refrain from doing respectively.  

Professionals are negligent when they cause damage by omitting to show such skill or diligence in their profession, occupation, job or activity like a reasonable prudent person who has the same qualifications would show under the circumstances.

In other words a person is negligent if they cause injury, loss or damage to another person, if he/she fails in to take all reasonable care to avoid it.  Therefore the Plaintiff must prove three things:

  • There is a duty to be diligent and to take care in the circumstances.  This duty extends only to persons to whom the Defendant had under the circumstances an obligation not to show negligence (duty of care is owed to your “neighbour”)  Such duty is owed in the following instances:
    • The person in possession of immovable property owes a duty of care to the owner (subject to the contractual obligations of a lease.)
    • The owner of immovable property owes a duty of care to any person who is lawfully found inside or so near the vicinity of the immovable property, that would be affected from the negligence in the normal course of events.
      • Both the owner and the person in possession of the property have an obligation to maintain and repair that property and owe a duty of care to any person not found inside the property.
      • This excludes bare licensees who are found inside the property to which a duty of care extends only to a warning about a latent or unobservable danger that the owner or person in possession should know or deemed to know.  A bare licensee is not a person who is found in the property:
      • To do work for the owner, or
      • In the course of legal duty, or
      • As an invitee or employee of the owner.
    • The owner of a transport medium (including, horses, cars, busses, trains, boats, ships, aeroplanes etc.) owes a duty of care to any paying passenger or for any movable property (e.g. luggage) but also to any owner of land or person found so near the vicinity of the transport medium, that would be affected from the negligence in the normal course of events.
    • Every person or owner of movable property found inside any public or private immovable property or transport medium owes a duty of care to the owner or person in possession of the property or transport medium or to any other person found in the property or fellow passenger which a reasonable person would foresee as likely to be affected from the negligence in the normal course of events.
    • Every person who works for or provides services (with or without remuneration) owes a duty of care to any other person to whom he/she provides the work or services or on whose premises he/she provides the work or services.
  • This duty was breached by the Defendant whose actions or inactions in the circumstances did not meet the standard expected from a reasonable prudent person.
  • The plaintiff has suffered injury, loss or damage as a direct consequence of the Defendant’s actions or inactions.  This damage must be reasonable foreseeable and consequential but not remote to the breach of duty of care.

In some instances there is a presumption that an action or omission is negligent unless the defendant proves that it is not. These are the following:

  • If the damage has been caused by any dangerous thing, fire or animal, or due to the escape of any thing that can cause damage and the Defendant is the owner, person in possession or person responsible of the property from which the thing, fire, or animal have escaped.
  • If the damage has been caused by fire or due to a fire and the Defendant has ignited it or is responsible for igniting it or is the owner or person in possession of movable property from which the fire has started or spread.
  • If the damage has been caused by a wild animal or by a tame animal that the Defendant should or is deemed to know it had a tendency to act in such a way so as to cause damage, and the Defendant was the owner or person responsible of that animal.

The above are known as the rule of Rylands v Fletcher

  • If it is proven that the Plaintiff lacks knowledge or means to know of the real circumstances that caused the event that led to the damage and that the damage was caused from property that the Defentant had full control and the courts is of the opinion that the event is more likely to have been caused because the Defendant omitted to show reasonable care.

The above is known as the rule of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).

Under the above qualifications it can be seen that a duty of care is owed to our fellow citizens under most aspects of our life both in our houses or properties, but also while in transit in our roads or public transport and in performing the duties of our work.  Occupier’s (owner of premises) liability, traffic accidents, employers’ liability, professional liability (e.g. medical negligence claims and disputes) etc. causing personal injury damage are all negligent-type torts that can give rise to claims.

There are rules that govern the assessment of the damages to be awarded by the court for the loss or injury incurred by the Plaintiff.  These include whether the Plaintiff had any contributory negligence in the cause of the injury, whether the injury was so remote that could not reasonable been predicted, whether the breach was a result of the actions or omissions of r more than one Defendants, whether the injury is permanent or transient, whether other persons (dependants) are affected etc.

A defence to negligence is the principle of Volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, injury is not done) where the Plaintiff had or should be deemed to have knowledge and perception of the state of affairs that caused the damage and that he/she willingly exposed him/herself or his property to that situation.  So if the Plaintiff willingly places him/herself in a position where he should know that harm might result then they may not succeed in a claim against the other party for any loss suffered by the harm done

Our Services

Our services include all tort-related matters such as:

  • Legal Opinions.
  • Claims for personal injuries and losses due to negligence.
  • Claims for Defamation (libel and slander).
  • Claims for Intentional Torts such as:
      • Assault.
      • False imprisonment.
      • Malicious prosecution.
      • Illegally causing another to breach a contract.
      • Unfair competition.
      • Fraud.
      • Illegally withholding goods.
      • Misappropriation.
      • Trespassing.
      • Illegal interference with movable property.
      • Public nuisance.
      • Private nuisance.
      • Interference to light.
  • Claims for modern torts such as:
      • Illegal invasion of privacy.
      • Infliction of mental suffering.
      • Misuse of private information.
      • Acting to avoid execution of a judgment.
  • All other tort matters.
  • Appeals etc
Back to content