title: Operation Junction City

abstract: Operation Junction City was an 82-day military operation conducted by United States and Republic of Vietnam forces begun on 22 February 1967 during the Vietnam War. It was the first U.S. combat airborne operation since the Korean War and one of the largest Airmobile operations of the war.

text:
# Operation Junction City

**Operation Junction City** was an 82-day military operation conducted by United States and Republic of Vietnam (RVN or South Vietnam) forces begun on 22 February 1967 during the Vietnam War. It was the first U.S. combat airborne operation since the Korean War and one of the largest Airmobile operations of the war.

## Background

The stated aim of the almost three-month operation involving the equivalent of nearly three divisions of U.S. troops was to locate the elusive 'headquarters' of the Communist uprising in South Vietnam, the Central Office of South Vietnam (COSVN). By some accounts of U.S. analysts at the time, such a headquarters was believed to be almost a "mini-Pentagon", complete with typists, file cabinets, and staff workers with a large guard force. After the end of the war, the actual headquarters was revealed by Viet Cong (VC) archives to be a small and mobile group of people, often sheltering in ad hoc facilities and at one point escaping an errant bombing by some hundreds of meters.

Junction City's grand tactical plan was a "hammer and anvil" tactic, with airborne forces "flushing out" the VC headquarters, driving it against a prepared "anvil" of other forces. The U.S. forces included most of the 1st Infantry Division and the 25th Infantry Division including the 196th Light Infantry Brigade, the airborne troops of the 173rd Airborne Brigade and large armored elements of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (11th ACR).

## Operation

II Field Force, Vietnam started the operation on 22 February 1967 (while Operation Cedar Falls was winding down). The initial operation was carried out by the 1st (commanded by Major General William E. DePuy) and the 25th (commanded by Major General Frederick C. Weyand) infantry divisions, who led their forces to the north of the operational area to build the "anvil" on which the VC 9th Division would be crushed. At the same time as the movement of infantry (eight battalions with 249 helicopters) 845 paratroopers of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted the only mass combat jump of the war and the largest since the Korean War.

At first, the operations appeared to be succeeding, objectives were reached without encountering great resistance and on February 23, the mechanized forces 11th ACR and the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, the "hammer" of armor struck against the '"anvil" of the infantry and airborne positioned north and west, giving the VC forces seemingly no chance to escape. The PAVN claim that on the first day of the operation they killed almost 200 U.S. troops, destroyed 16 armored vehicles and shot down 16 aircraft. The VC, highly mobile and elusive, with information sources deep in the South Vietnamese bureaucracy, had already moved their headquarters to Cambodia and launched several attacks to inflict losses and wear down the Americans. On February 28 and March 10 there were engagements with U.S. forces at the Battle of Prek Klok I and the Battle of Prek Klok II where the US, supported by powerful air strikes and massive artillery support repulsed VC attacks, but the strategic result was disappointing.

On 18 March 1967, General Bruce Palmer Jr., new commander of II Field Force, Vietnam, after General Seaman, launched the second phase of Junction City, this time directly to the east by the mechanized divisions, the 1st Infantry Division and 11th ACR, reinforced this time from the 1st Brigade of the 9th Infantry Division. This maneuver gave rise to the toughest battle of the operation, the March 19 Battle of Ap Bau Bang II, where the VC 273rd Regiment put into difficulties the American armored cavalry, before being forced to retire by a huge amount of firepower.

The VC launched two more attacks in force, on March 21 and in Ap Gu on April 1, against the 1st and the 25th Infantry Division, both assaults were bloodily repulsed and the VC 9th Division came out seriously weakened, though still able to fight or retreat to safety in areas adjacent to the Cambodian border. On April 16, the U.S. command of II Field Force, in agreement with the MACV, decided to continue operations with a third phase of Operation Junction City. Until May 14, certain units of the 25th Infantry Division undertook long and exhausting searches, advancing in the bush, raking villages, and retrieving large amounts of materiel, but with little contact with VC units, which had cautiously moved to a defensive footing.

## Aftermath

Tay Ninh Province was picked over thoroughly and VC forces suffered significant losses, including large amounts of material captured: 810 tonnes of rice, 600 tonnes of small arms, 500,000 pages of documents. The American losses were not negligible, however, amounting to nearly 300 dead and over 1,500 injured.

According to calculations by the American command, the VC 9th Division was seriously weakened by the operations, suffering the loss of 2,728 killed, 34 captured men and 139 deserters. 100 crew-served weapons and 491 individual weapons were captured. The Vietnam Ministry of Defense in April 2017 claimed that they had suffered casualties of 10.2% (1275) of their total strength (15,000 men), with 1.7% (255) of total strength killed.

After the operations, the American forces were recalled to other areas of operation, and the country which was supposed to be in the firm control of the South Vietnamese government soon fell prey again to infiltration by the VC forces when they returned from their sanctuaries in Cambodia.

Allied intelligence later learned that, as a result of the operation, the VC moved most of their main force units across the border into Cambodia, rather than stationing them in South Vietnam where they were more vulnerable to attack. The border sanctuaries in Cambodia which had previously been logistical areas were expanded dramatically, creating further tension between Cambodia and South Vietnam and its Allies.

When American troops found, in some stores, 120 reels of film and logistical equipment for the printing of documents, the command of MACV believed they had finally found the famous COSVN. However, the reality was very different. The mobile headquarters, commanded by some mysterious and famous characters, such as generals Thanh, Tran Van Tran and Do, had quickly retreated to Cambodia, maintaining its operations and confounding the hopes of the U.S. strategic planners.

With a huge consumption of resources and equipment, including 366,000 rounds of artillery and 3,235 tons of bombs, the American forces had inflicted losses on the communist forces and demonstrated the ability of airborne forces and even mechanized forces (also useful in impervious territory). Despite the tactical results, Junction City on an operational level didn't accomplish the most important objective, and failed to yield any long-term strategic leverage.

## Further reading

## InfoBox

| Operation Junction City | |
| --- | --- |
| Part of the Vietnam War | |
|
*Cedar Falls*/*Junction City* area of operations | |
| Date 22 February – 14 May 1967  Location War Zone C, Tây Ninh Province, South Vietnam  Result  Inconclusive | |
| Belligerents | |
| United States | Viet Cong
North Vietnam |
| Commanders and leaders | |
| Jonathan Seaman
Bruce Palmer Jr. | Hoàng Văn Thái
Lê Đức Anh |
| Units involved | |
| 1st Infantry Division
25th Infantry Division
173rd Airborne Brigade
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
1st Brigade, 9th Infantry Division | 9th Division |
| Strength | |
| 30,000 | ~15,000 |
| Casualties and losses | |
| **US report:**
282 killed
1,576 wounded
24 tanks and armored vehicles destroyed
12 trucks destroyed
4 helicopters destroyed
5 howitzers destroyed
**PAVN claim:**
13,500 killed or wounded
800 armored vehicles and truck destroyed or damaged
119 howitzers and mortars destroyed or damaged | **US claim:**
2,728 killed
34 captured
139 deserted
491 individual and 100 crew-served weapons recovered
**PAVN report:**
255 killed
1,275 wounded, captured or deserted |


title: Operational calculus

abstract: Operational calculus, also known as operational analysis, is a technique by which problems in analysis, in particular differential equations, are transformed into algebraic problems, usually the problem of solving a polynomial equation.

text:
# Operational calculus

**Operational calculus**, also known as **operational analysis**, is a technique by which problems in analysis, in particular differential equations, are transformed into algebraic problems, usually the problem of solving a polynomial equation.

## History

The idea of representing the processes of calculus, differentiation and integration, as operators has a long history that goes back to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The mathematician Louis François Antoine Arbogast was one of the first to manipulate these symbols independently of the function to which they were applied.

This approach was further developed by Francois-Joseph Servois who developed convenient notations. Servois was followed by a school of British and Irish mathematicians including Charles James Hargreave, George Boole, Bownin, Carmichael, Doukin, Graves, Murphy, William Spottiswoode and Sylvester.

Treatises describing the application of operator methods to ordinary and partial differential equations were written by Robert Bell Carmichael in 1855 and by Boole in 1859.

This technique was fully developed by the physicist Oliver Heaviside in 1893, in connection with his work in telegraphy.

Guided greatly by intuition and his wealth of knowledge on the physics behind his circuit studies, \[Heaviside\] developed the operational calculus now ascribed to his name.

At the time, Heaviside's methods were not rigorous, and his work was not further developed by mathematicians. Operational calculus first found applications in electrical engineering problems, for the calculation of transients in linear circuits after 1910, under the impulse of Ernst Julius Berg, John Renshaw Carson and Vannevar Bush.

A rigorous mathematical justification of Heaviside's operational methods came only after the work of Bromwich that related operational calculus with Laplace transformation methods (see the books by Jeffreys, by Carslaw or by MacLachlan for a detailed exposition). Other ways of justifying the operational methods of Heaviside were introduced in the mid-1920s using integral equation techniques (as done by Carson) or Fourier transformation (as done by Norbert Wiener).

A different approach to operational calculus was developed in the 1930s by Polish mathematician Jan Mikusiński, using algebraic reasoning.

Norbert Wiener laid the foundations for operator theory in his review of the existential status of the operational calculus in 1926:

The brilliant work of Heaviside is purely heuristic, devoid of even the pretense to mathematical rigor. Its operators apply to electric voltages and currents, which may be discontinuous and certainly need not be analytic. For example, the favorite *corpus vile* on which he tries out his operators is a function which vanishes to the left of the origin and is 1 to the right. This excludes any direct application of the methods of Pincherle… Although Heaviside’s developments have not been justified by the present state of the purely mathematical theory of operators, there is a great deal of what we may call experimental evidence of their validity, and they are very valuable to the electrical engineers. There are cases, however, where they lead to ambiguous or contradictory results.

## Principle

The key element of the operational calculus is to consider differentiation as an operator p = d/d*t* acting on functions. Linear differential equations can then be recast in the form of "functions" *F*(p) of the operator p acting on the unknown function equaling the known function. Here, *F* is defining something that takes in an operator p and returns another operator *F*(p). Solutions are then obtained by making the inverse operator of F act on the known function. The operational calculus generally is typified by two symbols: the operator p, and the unit function **1**. The operator in its use probably is more mathematical than physical, the unit function more physical than mathematical. The operator p in the Heaviside calculus initially is to represent the time differentiator d/d*t*. Further, it is desired for this operator to bear the reciprocal relation such that p1 denotes the operation of integration.

In electrical circuit theory, one is trying to determine the response of an electrical circuit to an impulse. Due to linearity, it is enough to consider a **unit step**:

Heaviside step function: *H*(*t*) such that *H*(*t*) = 0 if *t* \< 0 and *H*(*t*) = 1 if *t* \> 0.

The simplest example of application of the operational calculus is to solve: p *y* = *H*(*t*), which gives

$$y=\operatorname {p} ^{-1}H=\int \_{0}^{t}H(u)\\,du=t\\,H(t).$$

From this example, one sees that $\operatorname {p} ^{-1}$ represents integration. Furthermore n iterated integrations is represented by $\operatorname {p} ^{-n},$ so that

$$\operatorname {p} ^{-n}H(t)={\frac {t^{n}{n!}H(t).}}$$

Continuing to treat p as if it were a variable,

$$\frac {\operatorname {p} }{\operatorname {p} -a}H(t)={\frac {1}{1-{\frac {a}{\operatorname {p} }\\,H(t),}}}$$

which can be rewritten by using a geometric series expansion: $\frac {1}{1-{\frac {a}{\operatorname {p} }H(t)=\sum \_{n=0}^{\infty }a^{n}\operatorname {p} ^{-n}H(t)=\sum \_{n=0}^{\infty }{\frac {a^{n}t^{n}{n!}H(t)=e^{at}H(t).}}}}$

Using partial fraction decomposition, one can define any fraction in the operator p and compute its action on *H*(*t*). Moreover, if the function 1/*F*(p) has a series expansion of the form

$$\frac {1}{F(\operatorname {p} )}=\sum \_{n=0}^{\infty }a\_{n}\operatorname {p} ^{-n},$$

it is straightforward to find

$$\frac {1}{F(\operatorname {p} )}H(t)=\sum \_{n=0}^{\infty }a\_{n}{\frac {t^{n}{n!}H(t).}}$$

Applying this rule, solving any linear differential equation is reduced to a purely algebraic problem.

Heaviside went further and defined fractional power of p, thus establishing a connection between operational calculus and fractional calculus.

Using the Taylor expansion, one can also verify the Lagrange–Boole translation formula, *e**a* p *f*(*t*) = *f*(*t* \+ *a*), so the operational calculus is also applicable to finite-difference equations and to electrical engineering problems with delayed signals.

## Further sources

### During Heaviside's lifetime

* Terquem & Gerono (1855). "\[no title cited\]". *Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques*. **14**: 83. — Some historical references on the precursor work up to Carmichael\].

* Heaviside, Oliver (1892). *Electrical Papers*. London, UK.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

* Heaviside, Oliver (1902) \[1893, 1899\]. *Electromagnetic Theory*. London, UK.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Heaviside, Oliver (1894). "VIII. On Operators in Physical Mathematics. Part II". *Proceedings of the Royal Society of London*. **54** (326–330): 105–143. doi:10.1098/rspl.1893.0059. ISSN 0370-1662. S2CID 121790063.

### After Heaviside's death

* Carson, J.R. (1926). *Electric Circuit Theory and the Operational Calculus*. McGraw Hill.

* Churchill, R.V. (1958). *Operational Mathematics*. McGraw-Hill.

"A correction". *Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society*. **33** (4): 492. July–August 1927. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1927-04412-3. Retrieved 7 December 2023  via Project Euclid (projecteuclid.org). * Mikusiński, J. (1960). *Operational Calculus*. Elsevier.


title: Order of Queen Maria Luisa

abstract: The Royal Order of Noble Ladies of Queen Maria Luisa is an Order created by King Charles IV of Spain by royal decree on April 21, 1792, at the request of his wife, Queen Maria Luisa, to reward noble women who distinguished themselves for their services and talents. As such, it was established as an honour reserved only for women.

text:
# Order of Queen Maria Luisa

The **Royal Order of Noble Ladies of Queen Maria Luisa** is an Order created by King Charles IV of Spain by royal decree on April 21, 1792, at the request of his wife, Queen Maria Luisa, to reward noble women who distinguished themselves for their services and talents. As such, it was established as an honour reserved only for women.

## History

The Order was defined as a strictly female reward system, ruled by the Queen and composed of thirty members reserved for the Spanish high nobility. The first secretary of the Order was Don Miguel de Bañuelos y Fuentes, retired Knight of the Order of Charles III, and General Stewart of the Army.

In 1796 the King raised the Order to a nobiliary dignity, granting their holders and their spouses the protocolar treatment of excellence, equating to Grandee of Spain and Knights Grand Crosses of the Order of Charles III. Later, during the short reign of Joseph Bonaparte (Joseph I of Spain), a decree was signed on September 18, 1809, dissolving all military orders, including the female one of Maria Luisa, excepting only the order of the Golden Fleece, but this measure was reversed after Bonaparte's expulsion from Spain and the Bourbon restoration. Successive queens in turn inherited the prerogatives of the founding queen of the Order and the custom was established that the current queen of Spain would exercise the governorship of the Order.

In a Royal Decree of October 28, 1851, a payment of 3,000 reales was required of members of the Order, to be paid within three months; non-payers would cease to be members. Also included in the protocol for granting the authorization of the Council of Ministers and published in the Gaceta de Madrid (now Boletín Oficial del Estado). In 1869, after the dismissal of Queen Isabella II, the ruler, General Francisco Serrano, 1st Duke of la Torre changed the name of the Order to *Order of the Nobles Ladies of Spain*.

King Alfonso XII, by Royal Decree of November 28, 1878, declared that the Noble Ladies could wear the cross of the Order in a less formal way on the left side of the chest, except on occasions important enough to require its use in the form prescribed by the Order's statutes.

A Republican decree of July 24, 1931, without expressly referring to this Order, abolished in fact as an official institution. But both King Alfonso XIII, until January 1941, and his son Juan de Borbón, Count of Barcelona gave some bands of this Order to some princesses of his family; the latest to his daughters, Infantas Infanta Pilar, Duchess of Badajoz and Infanta Margarita, Duchess of Soria, to commemorate their eighteenth birthday. It was also granted to Princess Sophia of Greece when she became Princess of Spain by her marriage to the future King Juan Carlos I in 1962; she wore the Dame's version at his proclamation ceremony on November 22, 1975.

Currently, and according to the statutes, there is a single category of Noble Lady, limited to 30 members except on the express will of the monarch. Since the resignation of Don Juan de Borbón, Count of Barcelona to his dynastic rights on May 14, 1977, during the reign of Juan Carlos I, there have been no new appointments so that, although it formally remains in effect, it can be considered that this order is *de facto* extinct.

## Patronage and feast days

The patronage of the Order was entrusted to Saint Ferdinand, king of Castile and León and Saint Louis, king of France and during their feast days, May 30 and August 25 respectively, the Queen received protocolarly the Ladies in chapter. As well, the Noble Ladies of the Order were statutorily recommended special devotion to their patron saints and had to visit once a month a charity establishment, such as the Hospital de la Inclusa or some women's hospitals such as the Hospital de la Pasión.

## Investiture

Women rewarded by this distinction normally receive it in a formal investiture ceremony described in the statute, in the private rooms of the Queen at the Royal Palace, except in cases of serious illness or disability.

Many women from many countries have received this distinction, one of the major honors that the Spanish monarchy can award to women in recognition of their "services, actions and qualities."

## Current members

## Notes and sources

## InfoBox

| Royal Order of Noble Ladies
of Queen Maria Luisa
*Real Orden de las Damas Nobles
de la Reina María Luisa*
 | |
| --- | --- |
|
Badge of the Order
Sash of the Order, belonging to the Empress Maria Alexandrovna of Russia | |
| Type | Order of knighthood for women |
| Established | 1792 (1792) |
| Country | Kingdom of Spain |
| Royal house | House of Bourbon |
| Ribbon |  |
| Sovereign | King Felipe VI |
| Grand Mistress | *Queen Letizia (de facto)* |
| Grades | Dame-Grand-Cross
Dame |
| Precedence | |
| Next (higher) | Royal and Distinguished Spanish Order of Charles III |
| Next (lower) | Royal Order of Isabella the Catholic |
|

 | |


title: Operation Locust

abstract: Operation Locust was an operation by M Special Unit in New Guinea during World War II. It was held in conjunction with the better known Operation Whiting.

text:
# Operation Locust

**Operation Locust** was an operation by M Special Unit in New Guinea during World War II. It was held in conjunction with the better known Operation Whiting.

## Mission

The mission was led by Lieutenant Jack Fryer, with Lieutenant Guy Black, Lieutenant Harry Aiken, and Sergeant Les (Tas) Baillie as radio operator, plus local bearers. It involved an extensive trek through Japanese-occupied territory in New Guinea, leaving from Bena Bena on 21 January 1943. The trek went for six months until 14 June 1943 when they reached the Lumi airstrip in the Torricelli mountains. Locust established a base camp here and started observing Japanese. However the locals were very hostile and after the disaster of Operation Whiting a decision was made to withdraw. The patrol left on 27 November 1943 from Kokiabu on the Sepik River and flown to Port Moresby.

According to one account, "Locust did bring back with it some information on defences and dispositions, as well as sketches of inland routes, and that intelligence was subsequently of value to the Australian forces. But the reality was that by the time the Australians reached the Aitape area, they could have mounted aerial surveillance and done much the same job."

## InfoBox

| Operation Locust | |
| --- | --- |
| Part of World War II | |
| Location | New Guinea<br>3°8′S 142°21′E / 3.133°S 142.350°E / -3.133; 142.350 |
| Planned by | M Special Unit |
| Commanded by | Jack Fryer |
| Date | 21 January 1943 (1943-01-21) |
| Outcome | Some success |
|  | |
|  | |


title: Orchesella taurica

abstract: Orchesella taurica is a species of slender springtail in the family Entomobryidae.

text:
# Orchesella taurica

***Orchesella taurica*** is a species of slender springtail in the family Entomobryidae.

## InfoBox

| *Orchesella taurica* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Subclass: | Collembola |
| Order: | Entomobryomorpha |
| Family: | Entomobryidae |
| Genus: | *Orchesella* |
| Species: | ***O. taurica*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Orchesella taurica***<br>Stach, 1960 | |
|


title: Orchesella texensis

abstract: Orchesella texensis is a species of slender springtail in the family Entomobryidae.

text:
# Orchesella texensis

***Orchesella texensis*** is a species of slender springtail in the family Entomobryidae.

## InfoBox

| *Orchesella texensis* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Subclass: | Collembola |
| Order: | Entomobryomorpha |
| Family: | Entomobryidae |
| Genus: | *Orchesella* |
| Species: | ***O. texensis*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Orchesella texensis***<br>Snider, 1997 | |
|


title: Cupido

abstract: Cupido may refer to:

text:
# Cupido

**Cupido** may refer to:

## Biology

## Music

## Places

## People

* Aidynn Cupido (born 1996), South African rugby union player
* Damian Cupido (born 1982), Australian rules footballer
* Joey Cupido (born 1990), Canadian lacrosse player
* John Cupido (born 1976), South African politician
* Keanu Cupido (born 1998), South African footballer
* Luca Cupido (born 1995), Italian-born American Olympic water polo player
* Paul Cupido (born 1972), Dutch fine art photographer

## Other uses


title: Oregon Episcopal School

abstract: Oregon Episcopal School (OES) is an American independent, coeducational, college preparatory, day and boarding school in the Raleigh Hills area of Portland, Oregon. It was preceded by St. Helen's Hall, a day and boarding school for girls established in 1869. OES was established in 1972 when the girls school merged with Bishop Dagwell Hall.

text:
# Oregon Episcopal School

**Oregon Episcopal School** (OES) is an American independent, coeducational, college preparatory, day and boarding school in the Raleigh Hills area of Portland, Oregon. It was preceded by **St. Helen's Hall**, a day and boarding school for girls established in 1869. OES was established in 1972 when the girls school merged with Bishop Dagwell Hall.

## History

Oregon Episcopal School (OES) was known as St. Helen's Hall at the time of its founding and was originally a boarding and day school for girls. It was established in 1869 in Portland, Oregon by the Rt. Rev. Benjamin Wistar Morris, Bishop of Oregon, and is "the oldest Episcopal school west of the Rocky Mountains."

OES's original site at 4th and Madison is now the location of Portland's City Hall. The school moved several times during its first century to different locations in downtown Portland. It was located at 13th and Hall Streets before moving to its present location in the Raleigh Hills neighborhood of Portland in 1964. The Bishop Dagwell Hall was soon added, expanding the academic program to boys.

In 1972, St. Helen's Hall merged with Bishop Dagwell Hall to become Oregon Episcopal School. Currently, the school serves children from prekindergarten through 12th grade and includes day-school and boarding programs.

A number of facilities have been added over the years. Meyer Hall was built in 1996 as a new facility for Middle School students; the Drinkward Center for Math, Science and Technology opened in 2003; and in 2016 a 45,000-square-foot Lower School facility opened for Pre-K through 5th grade students. Today, approximately 870 students in Pre-K through Grade 12 attend OES.

## Academics

The Beginning, Lower, and Middle schools consist entirely of day students, but the Upper School includes a boarding program. Approximately one-fifth of the Upper School's student body resides on campus, and around three-fourths of those boarding students hail from outside the United States.

In 2014, Oregon Episcopal School was ranked the best high school in the state of Oregon and the 13th best private school in the United States. OES ranked #2 on Oregon's 25 Best K-12 Schools for 2018, according to the *Portland Business Journal*.

### Science Research

OES's research-based science program has a long history of success in science research competitions. Over the years, many students have placed highly in prestigious competitions such as the Intel Science Talent Search, the Siemens Competition, the Davidson Fellows Scholarship, the Google Science Fair, the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, the Stockholm Junior Water Prize, the International Sustainable World Energy Engineering Environment Project Olympiad, the BioGENIOUS Competition, and the National Junior Science & Humanities Symposium. Since 1995, 19 students have been named Intel National Semifinalists and National Finalists with one senior National Finalist contestant placed 2nd nationally among 40 national finalists in 2003 and one senior National Finalist contestant placed 3rd nationally in 2004. Since 2002, 36 students have been named Siemens National Semifinalists, Regional Finalists and National Finalists. In 2010, juniors Akash Krishnan and Matthew Fernandez placed 1st nationally in the team category and won the Siemens Competition. Also in 2013, Ajay Krishnan was named the recipient of a prestigious $10,000 Davidson Fellows Scholarship, the top honor in the engineering category. He was also named a regional finalist in the Google Science Fair. In 2021 OES's aerospace team beat 614 rocketry teams from across North America to win the American Rocketry Challenge.

### Academic Championships

* Oregon Style Cross‐Examination Debate: 2016
* Oregon Battle of the Books: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
* Speech and Debate: 2018, 2021

## Facilities

OES's 59-acre campus lies in the hills of Southwest Portland. Facilities include:

* **Meyer Hall:** Built in 1996 for Middle School students. Topped by a "green" roof with soil and plants in 2006.
* **Drinkward Center for Math, Science and Technology:** Opened in 2003. Serves as a facility for STEM related fields in the Upper School.
* **Bishop Dagwell Hall:** This is OES's fine arts building. This building was the boys school at OES that later merged with St Helens Hall in 1960 to form OES.
* **Lower School:** The 45,000-square-foot facility for Pre-K through 5th grade students was completed in 2016. The design earned a Portland Architecture Award in 2018.
* **Fariss Hall:** This building was the old OES lower school, but due to the new lower school building being constructed in 2016 Fariss Hall is now a shared space with three main areas. This building was initially slated for demolition after the lower school was constructed, but due to the need for more space this never happened. These are:
    + **EC3 Design Center:** Founded in 2017 this facilities mission statement is to cultivate curiosity and creativity while collaborating with peers. This facility is used by the whole school and is composed of three rooms: Think (lounge), Make (Maker space) and Move (used for performance arts).
    + **Fariss Hall Athletics:** Fariss Hall athletics is composed of an exercise gym and a dance studio.
    + **Lower School:** Some lower school classes are still held in parts of Ferris Hall.
* **Jackson and Rodney Houses:** Founded in 1963 these are OESs two student dormitories. As a boarding school OES houses 60 boarding students.
* **OES Athletic Center:** Opened in September 2021, this 41,905 square-foot building can hold the entire student body and faculty. The newly expanded space includes two full-size gymnasiums: one named after alumnus and former athletic director Kris Van Hatcher and the other named after the Morissette family, donors to the athletic center. The athletic center houses the physical education and athletic departments, in addition to serving as a multipurpose venue for the entire school community. Interior finishes include polished concrete floors and a stair screen made of clear-vertical-grain cedar. Exposed, glue-laminated columns and beams are made of Douglas fir. The athletic center is designed to be energy efficient, featuring passive cooling strategies and limited mechanical cooling.

## Accreditation & Memberships

OES is accredited by the Northwest Association of Independent Schools, and is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools, the National Association of Episcopal Schools, and the Association of Boarding Schools.

## Athletics

OES has a long tradition of sports, competing under the supervision of the Oregon Schools Activities Association. The school has claimed over 65 championships since 1983. Upper School teams include basketball, soccer, lacrosse, volleyball, fencing, tennis, golf, cross country, track and field, and ski racing. Middle and Lower School students also compete in a variety of team sports.

Oregon Episcopal School's traditional athletic rival is Catlin Gabel School.

### Mascot

OES's official mascot is an Aardvark, chosen by the student body to replace their previous mascot, a falcon. At one time an eagle was also a mascot at the school.

In 2013, the mascot placed second in the West in *USA Today's* High School Sports' Best Mascot competition.

### State Championships

* Men's lacrosse: 2004, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2023
* Women's lacrosse: 2017
* Men's soccer: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2022
* Women's soccer: 1993, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
* Women's volleyball: 2006
* Women's cross country: 1988, 2023
* Men’s golf: 2019, 2022, 2023
* Women's golf: 2019, 2022, 2023
* Men's tennis: 1983, 1984, 1993, 1994, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
* Women's tennis: 1984, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1995, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2023
* Men's basketball: 2020

## Mount Hood Disaster

One of the worst climbing accidents in U.S. history occurred in May 1986 when seven sophomore students and two faculty froze to death while climbing Mount Hood while participating in an adventure program required by the school. Of the four survivors, three had life-threatening injuries, and one had his legs amputated. The OES disaster spurred the development of the Mountain Locator Unit, an inexpensive transmitter which helps searchers find climbers in distress. OES participates in a day of service in observance of the disaster each year on the second Wednesday of May.

## Notable alumni

## InfoBox

| Oregon Episcopal School | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Address | |
|  | |
| 6300 SW Nicol Road
Portland, Washington County, Oregon 97223
United States | |
| Coordinates | 45°28′27″N 122°45′22″W / 45.47417°N 122.75611°W / 45.47417; -122.75611 |
| Information | |
| Type | Private, Boarding |
| Religious affiliation(s) | Episcopalian |
| Opened | 1869 (as St. Helens Hall) |
| CEEB code | 380915 |
| Principal | David Lowell
*Head of Lower School*
 |
| Principal | Ann Sulzer
*Head of Middle School*
 |
| Principal | Sarah Grenert-Funk
*Head of Upper School*
 |
| Head of school | The Rev. Michael Spencer
*Head of School*
 |
| Grades | Pre-K–12 |
| Number of students | 875 (2020–21) |
| Campus | Suburban, 59 acres (240,000 m2) |
| Color(s) | Forest green, white, and Carolina blue |
| Slogan | Mind Opening Since 1869 |
| Athletics conference | OSAA Lewis & Clark League 3A-1 |
| Mascot | Aardvark |
| Accreditation | NAIS |
| Newspaper | *The Dig* |
| Website | oes.edu |


title: Oregon Exchanges

abstract: Oregon Exchanges was an American newspaper published by the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communications (SOJC) in the early 20th century. It initially described itself as a "Newspaper for Newspaper Men"; by 1930, it had adopted the gender-neutral slogan "For the Newspaper Folk of the State of Oregon." Its first issue was published in June 1917, the year after the school's founding. By the October issue, it was announced that students in the editing class would edit the publication. By 1920, students were producing the newspaper as part of their coursework in a course titled "Practical Editing." The paper was reportedly greeted with much praise at a 1922 convention of Sigma Delta Chi, a national journalism society. Professor George Stanley Turnbull served as editor in 1923, and that year it was named the official organ of the Oregon State Editorial Association. In 1924, it published the second Oregon newspaper directory, which was prepared by the SOJC. In 1929 Editor & Publisher described it as the "organ of the Oregon Press Association." Oregon Exchanges was discontinued as part of a cost-cutting campaign resulting from the Great Depression in 1932. It was succeeded a few months later by Oregon Publisher, which was produced by the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, an organization with close ties to the SOJC.

text:
# Oregon Exchanges

***Oregon Exchanges*** was an American newspaper published by the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communications (SOJC) in the early 20th century. It initially described itself as a "Newspaper for Newspaper Men"; by 1930, it had adopted the gender-neutral slogan "For the Newspaper Folk of the State of Oregon." Its first issue was published in June 1917, the year after the school's founding. By the October issue, it was announced that students in the editing class would edit the publication. By 1920, students were producing the newspaper as part of their coursework in a course titled "Practical Editing." The paper was reportedly greeted with much praise at a 1922 convention of Sigma Delta Chi, a national journalism society.

Professor George Stanley Turnbull served as editor in 1923, and that year it was named the official organ of the Oregon State Editorial Association. In 1924, it published the second Oregon newspaper directory, which was prepared by the SOJC. In 1929 *Editor & Publisher* described it as the "organ of the Oregon Press Association." *Oregon Exchanges* was discontinued as part of a cost-cutting campaign resulting from the Great Depression in 1932. It was succeeded a few months later by *Oregon Publisher*, which was produced by the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, an organization with close ties to the SOJC.


title: Cuisine of Luxembourg

abstract: Luxembourg's cuisine reflects the country's position between the Latin and Germanic countries, influenced by the cuisines of neighbouring France, Belgium and Germany. Recently, it has been influenced by the country's many Italian and Portuguese immigrants. As in Germany, most traditional, everyday Luxembourg dishes are of peasant origin, in contrast to the more sophisticated French fare.

text:
# Cuisine of Luxembourg

**Luxembourg's cuisine** reflects the country's position between the Latin and Germanic countries, influenced by the cuisines of neighbouring France, Belgium and Germany. Recently, it has been influenced by the country's many Italian and Portuguese immigrants. As in Germany, most traditional, everyday Luxembourg dishes are of peasant origin, in contrast to the more sophisticated French fare.

## Food

Luxembourg has many delicacies. In addition to French *pâtisseries*, cake and fruit pies, local pastries include the *Pretzel*, a Lent speciality; *Quetscheflued*, a *zwetschge* tart; *verwurelt Gedanken* or *Verwurelter*, small powdered sugar-coated doughnuts; and *Äppelklatzen*, apples *en croûte*. Luxembourg's cheese speciality is *Kachkéis* or Cancoillotte, a soft cheese spread.

Fish from the local rivers such as trout, pike, and crayfish are the basis for dishes such as *F'rell am Rèisleck* (trout in Riesling sauce), *Hiecht mat Kraiderzooss* (pike in green sauce) and *Kriibsen* (crayfish), usually prepared in a Riesling sauce. Another favourite is *Fritür* or *Friture de la Moselle*, small fried fish from the River Moselle, accompanied by a local Moselle white wine.

Meat dishes include cold *Éisleker Ham*, literally Oesling ham, from the mountainous north of the country, first marinated for a couple of weeks and then smoked for several days. It is usually served thinly sliced with chipped potatoes and salad. Perhaps the most traditional of all Luxembourg meat dishes is *Judd mat Gaardebounen*, smoked collar of pork with broad beans. The pork is soaked overnight, then boiled with vegetables and spices. Served in copious slices together with the beans and boiled potatoes, it is considered to be the national dish of Luxembourg. *Hong am Rèisleck*, similar to the Alsatian *Coq au Riesling*, consists of browned chicken pieces simmered in white wine with vegetables, spices and mushrooms. *Huesenziwwi* or *Civet de lièvre* is a jugged hare dish served during the hunting season.

Other dishes include liver dumplings (*quenelle*) with sauerkraut and boiled potatoes, *Träipen* (black pudding) with apple sauce, sausages with mashed potatoes and horseradish, and green bean soup (*Bouneschlupp*). French cuisine is featured prominently on many menus, as well as certain dishes from Germany and Belgium.

### Other notable foods

Other Luxembourg specialties include:

## Wine and beer

Wine, mostly dry white wine, and sparkling wine is produced in Luxembourg, along the north bank of the Moselle, which has a winemaking history dating back to the Romans. The main varieties are Riesling, Pinot gris, Pinot blanc, Chardonnay, Auxerrois, Gewürztraminer, Rivaner, Elbling, Pinot noir, and Crémant de Luxembourg. The *Marque Nationale*, on the rear of every bottle of Luxembourg wine, confirms its origin and states its quality level.

Beer, which is quite a popular drink in Luxembourg, is produced locally at three large breweries as well as in a couple of smaller establishments. Most of the beer brewed in Luxembourg is lager but there are also a number of special beers as well as beers without alcohol and Christmas beer in December. The main brands of beer are Bofferding, who also produce Battin; Mousel and Diekirch, who share the same brewery in Diekirch; and Simon. Since the 2000s there has been a resurgence of local microbreweries creating craft beer such as, Beierhaascht, Ourdaller and Grand Brewing.

## Further reading

* Georges Hausemer: *Culinary Luxembourg: Country, People & Cuisine*, photographer Guy Hoffman, Editions Guy Binsfeld, Luxembourg, 2009, pp. 240 ISBN 2-87954-052-6
* Léa Linster and Simone van de Voort: *Best of Lea Linster Cuisiniere*, 2003, Munsbach: Ottweiler Druckerei, 177 pp. ISBN 2-9599-85427 (in German)


title: Cuisles

abstract: Cuisles is a commune in the Marne department in north-eastern France. On 1 July 1973, the commune was merged with that of Châtillon-sur-Marne, but on 1 March 2006, it was re-established as a separate commune in its own right.

text:
# Cuisles

**Cuisles** (French pronunciation: \[kɥil\]) is a commune in the Marne department in north-eastern France.

On 1 July 1973, the commune was merged with that of Châtillon-sur-Marne, but on 1 March 2006, it was re-established as a separate commune in its own right.

## InfoBox

| Cuisles | |
| --- | --- |
| Commune | |
| Cuisles in the early 20th century | |
|  | |
| Location of Cuisles | |
| CuislesCuisles | |
| Coordinates: 49°07′52″N 3°46′25″E / 49.131°N 3.7737°E / 49.131; 3.7737 | |
| Country | France |
| Region | Grand Est |
| Department | Marne |
| Arrondissement | Reims |
| Canton | Dormans-Paysages de Champagne |
| Intercommunality | CU Grand Reims |
| Government | |
| Mayor (20202026) | Laurence Deplaine |
| Area**1** | 2.78 km2 (1.07 sq mi) |
| Population (2021) | 122 |
| Density | 44/km2 (110/sq mi) |
| Time zone | UTC+01:00 (CET) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC+02:00 (CEST) |
| INSEE/Postal code | 51201 /51700 |
| Elevation | 148 m (486 ft) |
| **1** French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers \> 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries. | |


title: Cumming metro station

abstract: Cumming is an underground metro station on the Line 5 of the Santiago Metro, in Santiago, Chile. It is located underneath Catedral street in the commune of Santiago, between metro stations Quinta Normal and Santa Ana. The station opened on March 31, 2004, along with Quinta Normal station. A ghost station, Libertad, lies between Quinta Normal and Cumming station. The station is located in the heart of Barrio Brasil, a lively neighborhood known for its cultural scene, near the Brasil campus of the Academy of Christian Humanism University, the Alberto Hurtado University and the Alonso de Ercilla Institute. At the entrance to the station lies the Iglesia de los Capuchinos, a church built in the Neoclassic Greco-Roman style. The station has disability access. Shotcrete was used for primary and secondary lining of the tunnels. The walls on the platform level and the mezzanine level ceiling feature perforated aluminum panels. A glazed street-level pavilion, which features shade devices, provides access to the station.

text:
# Cumming metro station

**Cumming** is an underground metro station on the Line 5 of the Santiago Metro, in Santiago, Chile. It is located underneath Catedral street in the commune of Santiago, between metro stations Quinta Normal and Santa Ana.

The station opened on March 31, 2004, along with Quinta Normal station. A ghost station, *Libertad*, lies between Quinta Normal and Cumming station.

The station is located in the heart of Barrio Brasil, a lively neighborhood known for its cultural scene, near the Brasil campus of the Academy of Christian Humanism University, the Alberto Hurtado University and the Alonso de Ercilla Institute. At the entrance to the station lies the Iglesia de los Capuchinos, a church built in the Neoclassic Greco-Roman style.

The station has disability access. Shotcrete was used for primary and secondary lining of the tunnels. The walls on the platform level and the mezzanine level ceiling feature perforated aluminum panels. A glazed street-level pavilion, which features shade devices, provides access to the station.

## Etymology

The station is named for its location underneath the intersection of Ricardo Cumming Avenue with Catedral Street, in the heart of Barrio Brasil.

Ricardo Cumming was a merchant who confessed to planning a siege of Valparaíso with the Congress fleet during the civil war of 1891. He was shot by government forces.

Media related to Cumming station at Wikimedia Commons

## InfoBox

| Cumming | |
| --- | --- |
| **Santiago Metro station** | |
|  | |
| General information | |
| Location | Catedral Street / Ricardo Cumming Avenue |
| Coordinates | 33°26′20.67″S 70°40′7.10″W / 33.4390750°S 70.6686389°W / -33.4390750; -70.6686389 |
| Line(s) | Line 5 |
| Platforms | 2 side platforms |
| Tracks | 2 |
| Connections | Transantiago buses |
| Construction | |
| Accessible | Yes |
| History | |
| Opened | March 31, 2004 |
|  | |
| Services | |
| Preceding station Santiago Metro Following station  Quinta Normaltowards Plaza de Maipú  Line 5  Santa Anatowards Vicente Valdés | |
|  | |
|  | |
|  | |


abstract: Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899), ("Richmond") was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned de jure segregation of races in American schools. The decision was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

text:
# Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education

***Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education***, 175 U.S. 528 (1899), ("Richmond") was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned *de jure* segregation of races in American schools. The decision was overruled by *Brown v. Board of Education* (1954).

## About the case

The plaintiffs, "Cumming, Harper and Ladeveze, citizens of Georgia and persons of color suing on behalf of themselves and all others in like case joining with them," originally filed suit by petition against the Board of Education of Richmond County (the "Board") and one "Charles S. Bohler, tax collector" in the Superior Court of Richmond County, claiming, among other causes of action, that a $45,000 tax levied against the county for primary, intermediate, grammar, and high schools was illegal insofar as the high schools of the county were exclusively for white students and seeking an injunction barring the collection of so much of the total amount as was earmarked for the white only high school system.

County was reversed upon the ground that it erred in granting an injunction against the Board of Education. In accordance with that decision, the Superior Court upon the return of the cause from the Supreme Court of the State, refused the relief asked by the plaintiffs, and dismissed their petition. Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed that order to the US Supreme Court as being in derogation of their rights under the US Constitution.

## Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed on economic arguments, among others. It claimed that there are many more colored children than white children in the area and that the Board could not afford to supply everyone with education. The court reasoned that there was a choice between educating 60 white children and educating no one.

The Supreme Court denied that it had any jurisdiction to interfere in the decisions of the state courts. The decision states in pertinent part:

> Under the circumstances disclosed, we cannot say that this action of the state court was, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, a denial by the state to the plaintiffs and to those associated with them of the equal protection of the laws or of any privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States,... the education of the people in schools maintained by state taxation is a matter belonging to the respective states, and any interference on the part of Federal authority with the management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights secured by the supreme law of the land.

The final remark says:

> If, in some appropriate proceeding instituted directly for that purpose, the plaintiffs had sought to compel the board of education, out of the funds in its hands or under its control, to establish and maintain a high school for colored children, and if it appeared that the board's refusal to maintain such a school was in fact an abuse of its discretion and in hostility to the colored population because of their race, different questions might have arisen in the state court.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the lone dissenter in *Plessy v. Ferguson*, wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

## Sources

* Connally, C. Ellen (2000). "Justice Harlan's 'Great Betrayal'? A Reconsideration of *Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education*". *Journal of Supreme Court History*. **25** (1): 72–92. doi:10.1111/1059-4329.00005. S2CID 143689082.

## InfoBox

| Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education | |
| --- | --- |
| Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued October 30, 1899
Decided December 18, 1899 | |
| Full case name | *J. W. Cumming, James S. Harper, and John C. Ladeveze, Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
County Board of Education of Richmond County, State of Georgia* |
| Citations | 175 U.S. 528 (*more*)20 S. Ct. 197; 44 L. Ed. 262; 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1580 |
| Holding | |
| The Richmond County tax, which supported high schools open to only white students, was legal. The city was allowed to determine the allocation of funds. Federal interference was justified only if local authorities disregarded constitutional rights. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice Melville Fuller  Associate Justices John M. Harlan **·**  Horace Gray
David J. Brewer **·**  Henry B. Brown
George Shiras Jr. **·**  Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham **·**  Joseph McKenna | |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by *unanimous* |
| Overruled by | |
| *Brown v. Board of Education*, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) | |


title: Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu

abstract: Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu is the first album by Italian rock band Elio e le Storie Tese. The album title is in Sinhalese language, and it means "Let's cum and fart with Elio". Most of the songs featured in this record were written during the band's early years before the album's release and were often performed during the 1980s. In 2012, the album has been ranked the 15th best Italian album of all time by the magazine Rolling Stone.

text:
# Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu

***Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu*** is the first album by Italian rock band Elio e le Storie Tese.

The album title is in Sinhalese language, and it means "Let's cum and fart with Elio".

Most of the songs featured in this record were written during the band's early years before the album's release and were often performed during the 1980s.

In 2012, the album has been ranked the 15th best Italian album of all time by the magazine *Rolling Stone*.

## Title

During an online interview about vulgar words and swearing in Elio e le Storie Tese's songs, keyboardist Rocco Tanica explained that the title of the album originated with a young Sri Lankan man living in Milan; wanting an incomprehensible title for the band's debut album, Tanica asked the man to say the most vulgar sentence in Sinhalese, and to include the name "Elio" within it. The man found it hard to respond properly due to the gentle and almost poetical nature of his native tongue, but he finally replied with the title sentence, which, according to other Sri Lankan people contacted by Tanica, may also be translated as "Let's cum and fart with Elio" or "Let's blow (air) and piss with Elio". In the same interview, Tanica also explained that a variant of the phrase with "kokapan" instead of "hukapan" exists in Sri Lankan street slang, and the former is perceived as much more vulgar as it refers to homosexual sex between two men.

## Track listing

CD edition
| No. | Title | Length |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | "Adolescenti a colloquio. Improvvisamente, Tremoto" | 1:09 |
| 2. | "John Holmes (Una vita per il cinema)" | 3:29 |
| 3. | "Domande bizzarre" | 0:39 |
| 4. | "Nubi di ieri sul nostro domani odierno (Abitudinario)" | 4:13 |
| 5. | "According the Memphis Horns" | 0:27 |
| 6. | "Carro" | 4:45 |
| 7. | "Una gita a..." | 0:10 |
| 8. | "The Fabolous '68s According to Tony Martucci" | 0:41 |
| 9. | "Nella vecchia azienda agricola" | 1:29 |
| 10. | "Silos" | 5:18 |
| 11. | "Cassonetto differenziato per il frutto del peccato" | 4:04 |
| 12. | "Introducing the Real Parakramabahu According to Shantha Edirisinghe" | 0:25 |
| 13. | "Parakramabahu Rajatuma" | 0:48 |
| 14. | "Piattaforma" | 3:29 |
| 15. | "Suspense! Il signor Brando Meets Marlon Brando" | 0:17 |
| 16. | "Introducing the Cara ti amo" | 2:33 |
| 17. | "Cara ti amo (Risvolti psicologici nei rapporti tra giovani uomini e giovani donne)" | 4:22 |
| 18. | "Messaggio satanico" | 0:38 |
| 19. | "Cateto" | 5:29 |
| 20. | "Spuma da 100" | 0:40 |
| 21. | "John Holmes (Shidzu Version)" | 3:38 |
| 22. | "Ang ang ang" | 0:21 |
| Total length: | | 49:10 |

Vinyl edition
| No. | Title | Length |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | "John Holmes (Una Vita Per Il Cinema)" | 3:29 |
| 2. | "Nubi Di Ieri Sul Nostro Domani Odierno (Abitudinario)" | 4:13 |
| 3. | "Carro" | 4:45 |
| 4. | "Nella Vecchia Azienda Agricola" | 1:29 |
| 5. | "Silos" | 5:18 |
| 6. | "Cassonetto Differenziato Per Il Frutto Del Peccato" | 4:04 |
| 7. | "ParaKramabahu Rajatuma" | 0:48 |
| 8. | "Piattaforma" | 3:29 |
| 9. | "Cara Ti Amo (Risvolti Psicologici Nei Rapporti Fra Giovani Uomini E Giovani Donne)" | 4:22 |
| 10. | "Cateto" | 5:29 |
| Total length: | | 37:26 |

Casette edition
| No. | Title | Length |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 11. | "John Holmes (Una Vita Per Il Cinema) (Shidzu Version)" | 3:38 |
| Total length: | | 41:04 |

## Personnel

* Stefano Belisari as Elio – vocals
* Sergio Conforti as Confo Tanica – piano
* Davide Civaschi as Civas – electric guitar
* Nicola Fasani as Faso – bass
* Paolo Panigada as Mu Fogliasch – sax
* Curt Cress – drums

## Allusions

The album contains several references to popular culture and youth culture from the 1970s and early 1980s, in particular to other music productions.

* The first track, "Adolescenti a colloquio. Improvvisamente, Tremoto", quotes the song "Eptadone" in the album *MONOtono* by Skiantos, as it features Elio's and Cesareo's voices electronically sped up to sound like teenage secondary school students. It also features Rockets' hit "On the Road Again" playing in background, and quotes former Italian football player Giacinto Facchetti.
* "John Holmes" is dedicated to the eponymous pornographic actor.
* "According the Memphis Horns" is a soundcheck by The Memphis Horns.
* "Carro" is introduced by a line from "Back in the U.S.S.R." by The Beatles and contains quotes from the German national anthem. It also includes a self-reference (or a self-quote) in the form of a slightly slowed-down and recurring sample of Elio's voice singing "...rri". This sample, as revealed by keyboard player Sergio Conforti (a.k.a. Rocco Tanica), comes from a later track on the album, "Piattaforma" (described below), where Elio sings the word "corri" (in English: "Run!"); during the mixing sessions, Elio and Tanica were listening to a rough mix of "Piattaforma", but the tape machine happened to have a slow starting mechanism, so, when they started it on the line ending with "corri", the machine only played "...rri", while the other half of the word was garbled and unhearable. Tanica liked the funny quality of the fragment so much that he kept using it again and again on several other songs - for example, it appears all the way through their 1990 single "Born to Be Abramo" and it recurs within "Pipppero", a hit single from the band's following album *İtalyan, rum casusu çikti*.
* "Nella vecchia azienda agricola" is a parody of *Nella vecchia fattoria*, the Italian version of "Old MacDonald Had a Farm".
* "Cassonetto differenziato per il frutto del peccato" includes several quotations from Italian pop songs, such as Lucio Battisti's "I giardini di marzo", as well as a sample from Lou Reed's "The Kids".The lyrics are a satire on Unwanted pregnancy issues in young women, with Elio mentioning the abandonment of newborn babies into dumpsters; the title literally translates to "Separated waste container for the fruit of sin".
* "Piattaforma" is inspired by "Je t'aime... moi non plus" by Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg. However, the structure of the song, which features a phone call from a child (played by voice actress Paola Tovaglia) talking about complex mechanical procedures on an oil platform to a man (Elio), who is revealed as the child's father only at the very end, is similar to Domenico Modugno's 1975 song "Piange... il telefono" (literally "The telephone is crying", but also translatable "Tears on the telephone"), where a little girl talks on the phone with a heartbroken man, without realizing he is actually her father. Also, according to Rocco Tanica's analysis of the song, some lines in the lyrics imply a romantic or affectionate relationship between the two characters - with the final disclosure of their parental link making the relationship itself slightly incestuous.
* Track 15, "Suspense! Mr. Brando meets Marlon Brando", a short spoken interlude, is a reference to *La Settimana Enigmistica*. "Suspense!", a recurring feature, consists of a short text detailing a curious and apparently unexplainable event which happened to a man named Mr. Brando; the reader is invited to find the only possible logical explanation to the event. Two more short interludes on the album, "Domande bizzarre" (English: "Weird questions") and "Una gita a..." ("A trip to..."), are also named after fixed features on the magazine.
* In "Messaggio satanico" (in English "Satanic Message"), Black Sabbath are quoted. After a short speech, the song goes into an off-key rendition of Happy Birthday to You, deliberately recorded backwards. It is intended as a mockery of a 1980s trend by heavy metal and hard rock bands to include actual backmasked Satanic-themed messages and invocations on their albums, but also of the habit to look for backmasked messages even where there are actually none, as a possible further reference to "Empty Spaces" by Pink Floyd; Black Sabbath themselves, despite their lyrical themes, never used such messages.

## Footnotes

1. "Elio Samaga Hukapan Kariyana Turu". *Discografia Nazionale della Canzone Italiana* (in Italian). Retrieved 23 August 2015.
2. "Elio Samaga Hukapan Kariyana Turu". *Discogs*. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
3. *Tintoria #207 Elio* (in Italian). Tintoria Podcast. 30 April 2024. Retrieved 6 June 2024  via YouTube.
4. "Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu". *Marok* (in Italian). Retrieved 23 August 2015.
5. "Il miglior disco italiano? Bollicine di Vasco Rossi". *Linkiesta.it* (in Italian). Archived from the original on 12 March 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
6. *Rocco Tanica spiega le parolacce di Elio e le storie tese* (in Italian). Vito Tartamella. 19 Dec 2017. Retrieved 6 June 2024  via YouTube.
7. *Radio EelST: Rocco Tanica racconta "Piattaforma"* (in Italian). Elio e le Storie Tese. 20 March 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2024  via YouTube.
8. *Piange il Telefono* (in Italian). Archived from the original on 13 December 2021.
9. *Radio EelST: Rocco Tanica racconta "Piattaforma"* (in Italian). Elio e le Storie Tese. 20 March 2020.
10. "Paranoia e meraviglia alla Settimana Enigmistica". *Prismo* (in Italian). 12 July 2016. Archived from the original on 27 September 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2020.

## InfoBox

| Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Studio album by Elio e le Storie Tese | |
| Released | December 1989 |
| Recorded | September 1989 |
| Genre | Comedy rock, alternative rock, progressive rock |
| Length | 49:10 |
| Label | Psycho
CBS |
| Producer | Otar Bolivecic |
| Elio e le Storie Tese chronology | |
| ***Elio samaga hukapan kariyana turu***
(1989) *The Los Sri Lanka Parakramabahu Brothers Featuring Elio e le Storie Tese*
(1990) | |


title: English tort law

abstract: English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations. In English law, torts like other civil cases are generally tried in front a judge without a jury.

text:
# English tort law

**English tort law** concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

In English law, torts like other civil cases are generally tried in front a judge without a jury.

## History

Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, providing a wide scope of protection, especially since *Donoghue v Stevenson*. For liability under negligence, a duty of care must be established owed to a group of persons to which the victim belongs, a nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled.

## Negligence

Liability for negligence arises when one person breaches a duty of care owed to another. The main elements of negligence are:

1. A duty of care (see *Donoghue v Stevenson*)
2. Breach of that duty (see *Nettleship v Weston*)
3. Breach causing harm in fact (see *Smith v Leech Brain & Co.*)
4. The harm must be not too remote a consequence of the breach (see *The Wagon Mound (No. 2)*)

In some situations, defences will be available to negligence. Special rules, and considerable bodies of case law have developed around four further particular fields in negligence: for psychiatric injury, economic loss, for public bodies, and when concerning omissions and third parties.

### Duty of care

The establishment of a duty of care is usually broken up into a three-step test. The first case to establish a general duty of care was *Donoghue v Stevenson*. Famously, Mrs Donoghue claimed compensation for illness after she consumed a ginger beer containing a decomposed snail in a public house in Paisley, Scotland. The bottle was opaque so neither Mrs Donoghue nor the shopkeeper could see a snail, and at the time she could not sue the shopkeeper for breach of contract or consumer rights. The House of Lords by a majority held that the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson, was liable in tort. Lord Atkin held liability was "based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay" and people "must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." By contrast, Lord Macmillan suggested that the law should protect Mrs Donoghue by incremental analogy to previous cases. Nevertheless, Lord Atkin's speech was widely followed and was understood to contain three main points for establishing a duty of care. First, the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm; second, the claimant and the defendant being in a relationship of proximity; third, and more loosely, it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant for his careless actions. This three-step scheme (also known as the tripartite or threefold test), however, did not crystallise until the case of *Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman*. A company called Caparo took over another company by buying up a majority of its shares. It did this because it obtained word from a company audit that the target was financially sound. The audit was prepared by a group of accountants (Dickman) and was intended for shareholders, not outsiders. Once Caparo owned the company it found that the finances were in fact pretty shoddy, and so it sued the accountants for being negligent in its audit preparation. The House of Lords found against Caparo and established the current threefold test. Although it was "reasonably foreseeable" that outsiders might learn of the carelessly prepared information, it was not the case that Caparo and Dickman were in a relationship of "proximity". This the court used as a term of art (note, this is different from the American use of the word) to say that it *should* not be the case that absolutely anyone who heard something said that was stupid and acted on it can sue. The court was reacting to its concern that to allow a claim here might open the floodgates of litigation. The third element, whether liability would be "fair, just and reasonable", was an extra hurdle added as a catch-all discretionary measure for the judiciary to block further claims.

### Breach of duty

Once a duty of care has been established, it must be shown that a duty has been breached. The question the courts ask is whether the behaviour exhibited by the defendant fell below the threshold of a "reasonable man" (the objective test). In some cases where the defendant was in a special profession, e.g. being a doctor, the court will ask what standard of care a "reasonable doctor" or the like might have done. Allowance is usually made for the defendants age and a lower standard of a "reasonable child of a certain age" is applied to children. On the other hand, no allowance is made for other personal circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was inexperienced in the task he set out to perform. He is expected to perform this task as a reasonably skilled and competent person.

### Causation and remoteness

Causation is complex, and is usually discussed in two parts. Simple causation is a question of whether "but for" the action by the defendant harm would have resulted. There has been some deal of discussion over whether a contributory cause is enough, and a variety of supplementary tests have been developed (e.g. the material contribution to risk and material damage to damage tests), often to deal specifically with a particular area of liability (asbestos cases, for instance).

After a causal link has been properly established, the courts may still deny compensation if the harm was a very remote consequence of the initial wrong. So long as a type of damage is foreseeable, however, the manner in which it occurred – however remote – is of no concern to the courts.

### Defences

Finding a successful defence absolves the defendant from full or partial liability for damages, which makes them valuable commodities in the court. There are three main defences to tortious liability; to argue the claimant voluntarily undertook the risk of his harm, that he contributed to the harm, or that he engaged in illegal activity.

*Volenti non fit injuria* is Latin for "to the willing, no injury is done". It operates when the claimant either expressly or implicitly consents to the risk of loss or damage. For example, if a regular spectator at an ice hockey match is injured when a player strikes the puck in the ordinary course of play, causing it to fly out of the rink and hit him or her, this is a foreseeable event and regular spectators are assumed to accept that risk of injury when buying a ticket. A slightly more limited defence may arise where the defendant has been given a warning, whether expressly to the plaintiff/claimant or by a public notice, sign or otherwise, that there is a danger of injury. The extent to which defendants can rely on notices to exclude or limit liability varies from country to country. This is an issue of policy as to whether defendants should not only warn of a known danger, but also take active steps to fence the site and take other reasonable precautions to prevent the known danger from befalling those foreseen to be at risk.

Contributory negligence is a mitigatory defence, whereby a claimant's damages are reduced in accordance with the percentage of contribution made by the claimant to the loss or damage suffered. Thus, in evaluating a collision between two vehicles, for example, if the wronged driver were not wearing a seatbelt, he would most likely be contributorily negligent. The court will then quantify the damages for the actual loss or damage sustained, and then reduce the amount paid to the claimant by 20%. Contributory negligence can also function as a full defence, when it is assessed at 100%, as in *Jayes v IMI Kynoch*.

*Ex turpi causa non oritur actio* is the illegality defence, the Latin for "no right of action arises from a despicable cause". If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's liability. Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have been sustained "but for" the property owner's intervention. However, a trespasser may be able to recover damages due to the unsafe state of the premises (see Occupiers' Liability below).

### Psychiatric injury

Historically, English courts have been reluctant to allow claims for nervous shock. Early claims involved ladies who suffered what the courts referred to as a "malady of the mind". It was not expected for men to succumb to such problems.

Today, courts are considerably less cautious but additional hurdles are still imposed upon claimants under certain circumstances. The following criteria must be satisfied:

* The injury must have been an event caused by the defendant – the defendant must have owed a duty of care to the claimant, but not a unilateral duty covering every eventuality, and it must have been precisely identified what duty was owed and whether the harm could have been foreseen.
* The claimant must have been involved in the injury (i.e. proximity must be demonstrated).
* The event must have caused a recognised psychiatric injury (e.g. pathological grief (*Vernon v Bosley*) or post-traumatic stress disorder (*Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire*).

The courts had been cautious for a number of reasons, including the fear of floodgates (indeterminate liability), potential for fraud (brought on by people exaggerating their claims), problems of proof and diagnosis (including the costs of expert opinion), psychiatric illness may be considered less serious than physical harm, the claimant is often a secondary victim, and finally, the courts argued that Parliament is better suited to dealing with this area.

In the case of *Dulieu v White* \[1901\] 2 KB 669, the claimant, Mrs Dulieu, was working in a public house. While she was serving, the defendant negligently drove his horse-drawn van into the bar. She suffered shock which resulted in a miscarriage, and she sued the defendant. Mr White was held liable for causing nervous shock resulting in miscarriage, as the claimant reasonably believed herself to be in danger.

Similarly, in *Page v Smith* \[1995\] AC 155, it was held that Mr Smith was liable for causing Mr Page psychiatric injury (chronic fatigue syndrome) after a car crash, because Mr Smith could have reasonably foreseen that Mr Page would suffer physical injury for the crash. So liability for causing psychiatric injury depends on the foreseeability of the physical injury, as long as the psychiatric illness is medically recognised.

In *Young v Charles Church* (Southern LTD)(1997) 39 BMLR 146, the claimant was a "participant" in the event (i.e. a primary victim – Evans & Hitchinson LJJ). He and Mr Cook were raising scaffolding poles in an area that was not secured by the employers; the power lines were not switched off. Mr Cook touched a pole to the electric wiring and suffered a horrific death which caused Mr Young great distress. Even though he never feared for the loss of his own life, the court held that Mr Young was in the area of potential damage, so he was entitled to claim compensation.

Finally, in *McLoughlin v Jones* \[2002\] QB 1312, there was an allegation that Mr McLoughlin was a bad landlord, threatening and beating up tenants to get their rent from them in cash. He was charged for a criminal offence and sentenced to prison. He claimed that his solicitors (Jones and Others) had acted without the evidence, especially the witness statement of a person who knew that Mr McLoughlin was not present when the beatings allegedly took place. It soon became apparent that he was actually an upstanding member of society and he suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the imprisonment and loss of reputation. (Note that solicitors have a pre-existing duty of care towards their clients.)

The case of *Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police* established a three factors for a secondary victim to succeed:

* Foreseeability – there must be a close relationship of love and affection between the secondary victim and the primary victim. This is presumed in the case of spouses and between parents and children, but must be demonstrated in all others.
* Proximity – there must be temporal and spatial proximity between the claimant and the accident.
* How the accident was caused, or proximity of perception.

Case law where this test has been applied includes *McLoughlin v O'Brian* \[1983\] AC 410, in which the husband and children of the claimant were involved in a car accident that was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The claimant found out about the accident an hour later and, when she got to the hospital two hours later, one child had already died. She saw her husband and children suffering and suffered shock, depression and a change of personality. The court established a spectrum of proximity; a pedestrian should be able to withstand seeing the accidents that occur in everyday life, but a family member of the victims will inevitably suffer greater emotional harm. Nonetheless, simply seeing the aftermath of the accident and not witnessing it is insufficient proximity. Similarly, seeing a video of the accident is insufficient.

*Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police* (1992) HL was a test case in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, where 95 spectators were crushed to death and 400 injured in a stadium. The event was televised and broadcast on radio. In *Alcock*, claims for damages for psychiatric illness were brought by fifteen relatives of the victims of the tragedy; some of them had been present at the match - but not in the area where the disaster occurred - and others had seen it on television or heard it on the radio. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police denied that the claimants were owed a duty of care. On the basis of the three exclusion criteria mentioned above, all claims were ruled out.

### Assumption of responsibility

### Pure economic loss

### Omissions and third parties

### Public bodies

## Strict and specific torts

While negligence actions set a general groundwork, many further fields of tort have developed their own identity or, where judicial decision-making was seen as insufficient by Parliament, through statutory reform. Major statutory torts concern food safety, health and safety and environmental law. For example, liability under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, or liability imposed on utility (gas and electricity) companies to ensure the safety of their products, all of which are strict liability. While a statute has said nothing specific, a tortious duty may have arisen. This will be a question of statutory interpretation (e.g. *Stovin v Wise* \[1996\] AC 923).

### Product liability

In consumer protection, with the *Product Liability Directive* in the European Union, where businesses making defective products that harm people must pay for any damage resulting. Liability for defective products is strict (see strict liability) in most jurisdictions. The theory of risk spreading provides support for this approach. Since manufacturers are the 'cheapest cost avoiders', because they have a greater chance to seek out problems, it makes sense to give them the incentive to guard against product defects.

### Workplace safety

One of the principal terms that accompanies the employment relationship is that the employer will provide a "safe system of work". As the industrial revolution developed, accidents from a hazardous working environment were a front line target for labour legislation, as a series of Factories Acts, from 1802, required minimum standards in workplace cleanliness, ventilation, fencing machinery, not to mention restrictions on child labour and limits to the working day. These Acts typically targeted particular kinds of workplaces, such as mines, or textile mills, before the more generalised approach took hold now seen in the Factories Act 1961. That applies to any workplace where an article is made or changed, or animals are kept and slaughtered. The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 made employers automatically liable for equipment with defects supplied by third parties. Because isolated employees lack the technical skill, time, training to litigate, such regulation's primary line of enforcement was through inspectors or agencies before matters went to court. Today the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, is the main law. The HSE can delegate enforcement to local authorities, whose inspectors have the power to investigate and require changes to workplace systems. In addition, HSWA 1974 section 2 foresees that employees will set up their own workplace committees, elected by the employees and with the power to codetermine health and safety matters with management. Spelling out the general duties found in HSWA 1974, are a set of health and safety regulations, which must also stay in line with the European-wide harmonised requirements of the Health and Safety Directive.

While the modern scheme of legislation and regulation engenders a comprehensive approach to enforcement and worker participation for health and safety matters, the common law remains relevant for getting civil law compensation, and some limits on an employers' duties. Although the legislative provisions are not automatic, breach of a statutory duty is evidence that a civil law duty has been breached. Injured employees can generally claim for loss of income, and relatives or dependents recover small sums to reflect distress. In principle, employers are vicariously liable for all actions of people acting for them in the "course of employment" whenever their actions have a "close connection" to the job, and even if it breaks an employer's rules. Only if an employee is on a "frolic of his own", and the employer cannot be said to have placed him in a position to cause harm, will the employer have a defence. Under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers must take out insurance for all injury costs, and insurance companies are precluded by law and practice from suing their employees to recover costs unless there is fraud. However, until the mid-20th century there were a series of major limitations. First, until 1937, if an employee was injured by a co-worker, the doctrine of common employment, the employer could only be liable if it was shown they were personally liable by carelessness in selecting staff. The House of Lords changed this in *Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English*, holding an employer had a non-delegable duty of care for all employees. Lord Wright held there were "fundamental obligations of a contract of employment... for which employers are absolutely responsible". The second old restriction was that, until 1891, *volenti non fit injuria* meant workers were assumed to voluntarily accept the dangers of their work by agreeing to their contracts of employment. Only if an employee callously ignores clear directions of the employer will he be taken to have voluntarily assumed the risk, like in *ICI Ltd v Shatwell* where an experienced quarry shotfirer said he "could not be bothered" to wait 10 minutes before setting of a detonation, and blew up his brother. Third, even if a worker was slightly at fault, until 1945 such contributory negligence precluded the whole of the claim. Now the court will only reduce damages by the amount the employee contributed to their own injury. The fourth defence available to employers, which still exists, is *ex turpi causa non oritur actio*, that if the employee was engaged in any illegal activity they may not claim compensation for injuries. In *Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd* Mr Hewison concealed his epilepsy so that he could work offshore was technically guilty of illegally attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception under the Theft Act 1968 section 16. After being struck in the head by a defective gangplank he suffered worse fits than before, but the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held his illegal act precluded any compensation.

The common law of tort also remains particularly relevant for the type of liability an employer has where there is scientific uncertainty about the cause of an injury. In asbestos disease cases, a worker may have been employed with at a number of jobs where he was exposed to asbestos, but his injury cannot with certainty be traced to any one. Although he may be able to sue all of them, a number may have already gone insolvent. In *Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd* the House of Lords held that if any employer had materially increased the risk of harm to the worker, they could would be jointly and severally liable and could be sued for the full sum, leaving it up to them to seek contribution from others and thus the risk of other businesses' insolvency. For a brief period, in *Barker v Corus* the House of Lords then decided that employers would only be liable on a proportionate basis, thus throwing the risk of employers' insolvency back onto workers. Immediately Parliament passed the Compensation Act 2006 section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts. It has also been held in *Chandler v Cape plc*, in 2011, that even though a subsidiary company is the direct employer of a worker, a parent company will owe a duty of care. Thus shareholders may not be able to hide behind the corporate veil to escape their obligations for the health and safety of the workforce.

### Road safety

Many serious accidents in practice take place on the roads. Like workplaces, this encouraged Parliament to require compulsory insurance for harm. The Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that motorists either be insured against any liability for injuries to other drivers, pedestrians or passengers and damage to property, or have made a specified deposit (£500,000 in 1991) and keeps the sum deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court. Using an uninsured motor vehicle on public roads is an offence. Private land to which the public have a reasonable right of access (for example, a supermarket car park during opening hours) is considered to be included within the requirements of the Act. Police may seize vehicles that do not appear to have necessary insurance in place. Drivers caught driving without insurance for a vehicle they own are liable to be prosecuted by the police and, upon conviction, will receive either a fixed penalty or magistrate's courts penalty.

### Environmental damage

### Occupiers' liability

Occupiers' Liability is currently governed by the two Occupier's Liability Acts, 1957 and 1984. Under these rules, an occupier, such as a shopkeeper, a home owner or a public authority, who invites others onto their land, or has trespassers, owes a minimum duty of care for people's safety. One early case was *Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland* \[1909\] AC 229, in which Lord Macnaughton felt that children who were hurt whilst looking for berries on a building site, should have some compensation for their unfortunate curiosity.

### Nuisance

The tort of nuisance allows a claimant (formerly plaintiff) to sue for most acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land. A good example of this is in the case of *Jones v Powell* (1629). A brewery made stinking vapours waft to neighbours' property, damaging his papers. Because he was a landowner, the neighbour sued in nuisance for this damage. But Whitelocke J, speaking for the Court of the King's Bench, said that because the water supply was contaminated, it was better that the neighbour's documents were risked. He said "it is better that they should be spoiled than that the common wealth stand in need of good liquor." Nowadays, interfering with neighbours' property is not looked upon so kindly. Nuisance deals with all kinds of things that spoil a landowner's enjoyment of his property.

A subset of nuisance is known as the rule in *Rylands v Fletcher*, which originates in a case where a dam burst into a coal mine shaft. In such cases, a dangerous escape of some hazard, including water, fire, or animals, gives rise to a strict liability claim. This is subject only to a remoteness cap, familiar from negligence when the event is unusual and unpredictable. This was the case where chemicals from a factory seeped through a floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's reservoirs.

### Trespass

A trespass is a direct injury to a person, his property or land, committed directly and intentionally by the defendant, for example, walking on someone's land is not trespass but cutting a gate into pieces with a saw is. However, this rule did not cater for anything injured indirectly by a person, for example if a farmer sets fire to a field, and someone's home is subsequently damaged. Trespass by the case did, however, provide a legal writ for injury caused indirectly by an action.

### Defamation

Defamation means tarnishing the reputation of someone. It is divided into two parts, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel is defaming somebody through print (or broadcasting). Both share the same features. To defame someone, you must (a) make a factual assertion (b) for which you cannot provide evidence of its truth. Defamation does not affect the voicing of opinions, but comes into the same fields as rights to free speech in the European Convention's Article 10.

### Breach of confidence

UK courts have created a common law responsibility to not share non-public information about others under certain circumstances, regardless of the existence of a contractual agreement.

### Intentional torts

Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories, including tort(s) against the person, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant. Those commonly recognised include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion.

### Economic torts and competition

Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law and modern antitrust or competition law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon."

Two cases demonstrated economic tort's affinity to competition and labour law. In *Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd.* the plaintiff argued he had been driven from the Chinese tea market by competitors at a 'shipping conference' that had acted together to underprice his company. But this cartel was ruled lawful and "nothing more \[than\] a war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade." Nowadays, this would be considered a criminal cartel. In labour law the most notable case is *Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants*. The House of Lords thought that unions should be liable in tort for helping workers to go on strike for better pay and conditions, but it riled workers so much that it led to the creation of the British Labour Party and the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, interference with a commercial contract or intimidation.

Through a recent development in common law, beginning with *Hedley Byrne v Heller* in 1964, and further through the Misrepresentations Act 1967, a victim of the tort of misrepresentation will be compensated for purely economic loss due to the misconception of the terms of the contract.

The English doctrine of restraint of trade was the catalyst for much of what is now called "competition laws" (or sometimes "antitrust"). These laws are a way of restraining those who would restrain "free competition" in the market economy, through monopolising production, setting up cartels, imposing unfair trading conditions, prices and so on. The English approach has traditionally been very flexible and liberal in its scope, but draconian when it did deem certain behaviour to be in restraint of trade. Many of these laws around the end of the nineteenth century were focused on the emasculation of trade unionism, until the reforming government of 1906 and the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Aside from the common law, legislation was introduced shortly after the second world war to foot policy on a statutory basis, the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act 1948, followed later by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965.

Since 1972, however, the UK has fallen under the cross-border-competition law regime of the European Community, which is found primarily in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty of the European Community. Companies that form a cartel or collude to disrupt competition (Article 81) or to abuse a dominant position in the market – for instance through a monopoly (Article 82) – face fines from the public-enforcement authorities, and in some cases they also face a cause of action in tort. A huge issue in the EU is whether to follow the U.S. approach of private damages actions to prevent anti-competitive conduct. In other words, the question is what should be seen as a private wrong (as was held in the vertical restraints case of *Courage Ltd v Crehan*) and what should be seen as a public wrong where only public enforcers are competent to impose penalties. In 1998 the United Kingdom brought its legislation up to date, with the Competition Act 1998, followed by the Enterprise Act 2002, a regime mirroring that of the European Union. The domestic enforcers are the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.

## Vicarious liability

| "If a slave man or woman damages any piece of someone else's property, then provided the person who suffers the loss was not himself partly to blame because of inexperience or careless conduct, the slave's owner must either make good the damage in full, or hand over the actual offender." |
| --- |
| **Plato**, *The Laws*, Book 11, §25, Damage by slaves. |

Vicarious liability refers to the idea of an employer being liable for torts committed by their employees, generally for policy reasons, and to ensure that victims have a means of recovery. The word "vicarious" derives from the Latin for 'change' or 'alternation' and the old Latin for the doctrine is *respondeat superior*. To establish vicarious liability, the courts must find first that there exists a relationship of employee and employer. The torts of independent contractors generally do not impose vicarious liability on employers; however, *Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd* demonstrates this principle does not apply where particularly hazardous activities are contracted for, or a non-delegable duty is owed. Secondly, the tort must have been committed 'in the course of employment'; or while an employee is going about the business of their employer. A preferred test of the courts for connecting torts to the course of employment was formulated by John William Salmond, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised. Where in *Limpus v London General Omnibus Company* an omnibus driver chose to disobey strict instructions from his employer, to obstruct a rival company, they were still liable, as he was merely engaging in his duties in an unauthorised way. However, in the contrasting case of *Beard v London General Omnibus Company*, there was no liability where a conductor drove an omnibus negligently, as it was no part of his duties. Under the test, employers were generally not held liable for intentional torts of their employees. *Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd* established a newer test, stating that employers would be liable for torts which were *closely connected* to the duties of an employee.

## Remedies

### Damages

The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in 'damages' or money. In a limited range of cases, tort law will tolerate self-help, such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser. This is a defence against the tort of battery. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an injunction. This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as restraining the continuance or threat of harm.

For people who have died as a result of another person's tort, the damages that their estate or their families may gain is governed by the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (replacing the Fatal Accidents Act 1846). Under s.1A the spouse or dependent of a victim may receive £11,800 in bereavement damages.

### Injunctions

As a remedy to tort, injunctions are most commonly used in cases of Nuisance. The court may impose an injunction on a tortfeasor, such as in Sturges v Bridgman. This legally obliges the tortfeasor to stop or reduce the activity causing the nuisance and its breach could, potentially, be a criminal offence. Injunctions may be used instead of or as well as the awarding of damages (above).

## Theory and reform

Scholars and lawyers have identified conflicting aims for the law of tort, to some extent reflected in the different types of damages awarded by the courts: compensatory, aggravated and punitive or exemplary. In *The Aims of the Law of Tort* (1951), Glanville Williams saw four possible bases on which different torts rested: appeasement, justice, deterrence and compensation.

From the late 1950s a group of legally oriented economists and economically oriented lawyers emphasised incentives and deterrence, and identified the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of risk. They are often described as the *law and economics movement*. Ronald Coase, one of the movement's principal proponents, submitted, in his article *The Problem of Social Cost* (1960), that the aim of tort should be to reflect as closely as possible liability where transaction costs should be minimised.

Calls for reform of tort law come from diverse standpoints reflecting diverse theories of the objectives of the law. Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential claimants. Because of all people who have accidents, only some can find solvent defendants from which to recover damages in the courts, P. S. Atiyah has called the situation a "damages lottery". Consequently, in New Zealand, the government in the 1960s established a "no-fault" system of state compensation for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of command papers in the UK and much academic debate.

There is some overlap between crime and tort, since tort, a private action, used to be used more than criminal laws in centuries gone. For example, an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example by the payment of damages to a person injured in a car accident, or the obtaining of injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with their business). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a person — although often criminal courts do have power to grant such remedies — but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf. That explains why incarceration is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for torts.

* S Deakin, A Johnston & B Markesinis. *Tort Law*, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-925711-6
* M Lunney & Ken Oliphant. *Tort Law – Texts, Cases*, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-926055-9
* Alastair Mullis & Ken Oliphant. *Torts*, 3rd edn. Palgrave, 2003. ISBN 978-0-333-96379-1
* *Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law* ISBN 1-84113-139-3