Introduction
A tort is a civil breach committed against another in which the
injured party can sue for damages. In personal injury cases, the injured party
will attempt to receive compensation with the represantation of a personal injury lawyer in order to recover from
damages incurred. Tort law decides whether a person should be held legally
responsible for injury against another, and what type of compensation the
injured party is entitled to. There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach
of duty, causation, and injury. In order to claim damages, there must be a
breach in the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which results in an
injury. The three main types of torts are negligence, strict liability (product liability), and
intentional torts.
Intentional Interference with a Person
All tortious charges of intentional interference with person/property
involve intent, which provides for a civil wrong, knowingly committed by the
offender. This contrasts with torts of negligence, which results from
lack of concern or responsibility on behalf of the offender.These damages are
dealt with through civil litigation.
Defenses to Intentional Interference with Persons
When a plaintiff accuses a defendant of an intentional tort, it is
the defendant's responsibility to identify any justifications for his actions
that may excuse him from liability. In tort law, there are several privileges
that a defendant may apprehend, in order to avoid liability. It is up to the
courts to determine whether the defendant's privilege excuses him from
liability. They need to conclude on whether the defendant had consent, permission
by the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff was defending himself, his property,
or another person. If the defendant is able to establish privilege, then it is
said that he has not committed a tortious act and will not be held liable.
Negligence: Standard of Conduct
There are certain elements that are required to prove that a
defendant acted negligently. There is a specific code of conduct which all
people are expected to follow and there is a duty of the public to act in a
certain way, which reduces the risk of harm to others. Negligence can only be
claimed by an injured plaintiff, whose interests have actually been interfered
with. This portrays that a plaintiff must prove his injuries, and prove that
they were caused by the defendant. This proximate cause is the link between the
defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. There is a statute of
limitations in negligence cases, however, there are several rules, such as
discovery and continuing negligence, which may excuse a plaintiff from the statute
of limitations.
Negligence Proof
The necessity for a negligence case to be tried in a court of law
is essential and evident. Tort law, like any other law, is tough to decide upon
when an enforcement or violation issue arises, and is furthermore tedious. In
negligence cases, a court appoints a jury to make a decision upon a case based
on the direct or circumstantial evidence that is available to them. The burden
of proof a plaintiff faces in a case, relates to four elements of proof that
must exist in order for them to be able to prove that a negligent act not only
existed, but the fact that the act by a defendant, led to the injury sustained
by the plaintiff.
Proximate Cause
The name given to the direct cause of an accident, or incident
leading to injury, is referred to as 'proximate'. The term proximate has long
been known to mean near, or in the vicinity of, not actual. This gives a
misconception to the name, as if the cause was nearly opposed to the actual
one. Other issues arise deeper within proximate cause, and that is with the
scope of liability and its extent. Controversy exists as to where liability
should be extended to a defendant, based on their responsibility or duty.
Joint Tortfeasors
Joint tortfeasors, seen as equally liable for the committing of a
tort, usually can be combined under one indictment. This is known as a
"joinder of defendants". In a case similar to this, one significant
reasoning behind its institution besides the commonality that the defendants
share in their joint action, is that of "judicial economy." In
reference to this term, the court is making the decision that placing all
defendants under one sole indictment will be the most appropriate option in
terms of efficiency and, ultimately, cost-effectiveness for the judicial system
itself. Due to the mounting quantities of cases arising daily, this practice is
employed as a worthwhile alternative, especially when an occasion such as that
of joint tortfeasors comes about.
Limited Duty
In legal terms, duty is seen as an individuals obligation to act
in a manner conducive to the well being of everyone around them, such as the
prevention of any "foreseeable injury to a victim." Such a term that
best represents this obligation is that of a "duty of care", or even
"good Samaritan" to an extent. Duty, itself, serves two other
important functions for societal concerns attached to tort law. These include a
"general principle" and a "limitation." A general principle
provides a precedence for future cases, while limitation sets forth the
"boundaries" for which liability may exist for individuals involved
in an incident. Actual application of this term comes in the form of its
existence at the "abstract level" and "in fact or problem".
Owners & Occupiers
The concerns for areas outside of the premises of a given property
deal with the condition of such a property. This is in direct regards to
certain factors and attributes such as structural or fixtures on the property
that could have an effect on the immediate areas surrounding it. The term
trespassing adults refers to any person who has been found to be entering,
occupying, or traveling through a property that is owned by someone else,
without their permission or consent. Licensees are persons that are given a
license, as a form of permission, to enter a property lawfully. Such persons
are to enter the property for a reason that does not have to be in the best
interest or benefit of the owner. By being granted the license to enter and
occupy such property, this individual is exempt from trespassing status, and is
completely abiding by the law.
Negligence- Defenses
Contributory negligence is one of the most commonly used
negligence defenses. The defendant attempts to deny the plaintiff the right to
action, by claiming that the plaintiff's own negligence played a large role in
his injuries. In contributory negligence, both parties are guilty of
negligence, but the plaintiff is not awarded any damages. The last clear chance
rule is an exception to the contributory negligence defense which permits the
plaintiff more freedom in taking action against a defendant when the plaintiff
is also guilty of negligence. The last clear chance refers to an instance where
the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff, but
did not take the opportunity. In cases where both the plaintiff and the
defendant are both guilty of some degree of negligence, contributory negligence
places liability solely on the plaintiff.
Imputed Negligence
Vicarious liability represents a venue in which individuals may be
"vicariously" held accountable for the actions of individuals other
than themselves. In these cases, the ones held liable are those who have some
type of legal claim to the actual individuals at fault. Two such persons may be
parents to mischievous children or employers to careless employees, as well as
a guardian. In each circumstance, the liable individuals are taking the place
of others. A joint enterprise is described as an action, which involves two or
more individuals, usually with monetary considerations involved. Additional
elements which comprise it include a common goal as well as concurrent rights
to take the lead of the operation.
Strict Liability
The basic structure that encompasses that of strict liability is
the fact that liability is maintained despite any intent otherwise. In this
way, it matters only that the action was performed to its fruition and an
eventual injury of another. Certain areas in which safety laws have had to come
to the forefront concerning liability include incidents involving product
defects. In cases such as these, consumers must only prove that their injuries
stemmed directly from the product in question in order to garner an appropriate
judgment from the court. The purpose behind such a seemingly rigid form of
legislature is to prevent future occurrences from happening by providing
precedence to fall in line with.
Compensation Systems
In tort cases, victims often receive compensation, including
monetary judgments. However, some judgments include other factors such as: the
accused, publicly admitting guilt. In most jurisdictions, the courts have
placed limits, or judgment ranges, which depend on specific factors found in
the case. In most cases, victims that sustain injuries receive a judgment which
maxes out, regardless of how painful and permanent the injury may be. However,
the courts can award other judgments, in addition to the one made for specific
bodily injury.
Nuisance
In modern tort law there are different types of nuisances: public,
private, and absolute. A private nuisance effects one individuals enjoyment of
his land, while a public nuisance effects a larger amount of citizens, or the
public in general. Absolute nuisances are nuisances for which the defendant is
strictly liable. The simple form of nuisance is described as an act which takes
away from rights to the use, and enjoyment of land that every owner has.
Products Liability
Products Liability is a field of tort law which concerns the
responsibility of the manufacturer or vendor of a product to ensure that
products are safe and do not cause injury. Products subjected to liability
include all consumer goods, medical devices, commercial/personal vehicles,
aircraft and consumable goods such as food and prescription drugs. As it is the
duty of a product vendor or manufacturer to produce/supply a product which will
not cause harm during normal use, manufacturer/vendors of unsafe products are
subject to recovery for damages.
Misrepresentation & Nondisclosure
Misrepresentation and nondisclosure form two fundamental bases for
many actions represented under tort law. Any case where false or hidden
information plays a significant part, essentially implies a standard of care
that reflects the negligence addressed by tort.
To phrase it more simply, the fact that information has been
withheld or misrepresented directly implies a negligent situation. This means
that among the various subsections of tort law, cases of misrepresentation and
nondisclosure can prove to be the easiest to form a legal consensus of opinion
on whether negligence has happened, due to the very idea that the act itself is
a negligent action.
Misrepresentation and nondisclosure can take many forms, but
generally they refer to an act or service. they are usually rendered for
compensation that do not fulfill their terms of promise, either because they
misrepresent their ability to perform, or fail to disclose elements that
prevent adequate performance (like a unknown side effect for a product, or a
conflict of interest in a case of service).
There are many remedies one may seek when a case of
misrepresentation can be seen to have occurred, though the extent to which they
fall under tort law or other forms of legal action are highly dependent on the
specific legal system, as well as the nature of the misrepresentation. In
nearly all cases, there is an obligation on the provider of a product or
service to provide information either by law, or by request, so as to adhere to
all legal standards of accurate representation.
Defamation
The term defamation refers to an abusive attack on a person's
character or to make false claims against someone in order to damage their good
name. There are two forms of defamation that can be used: libel and slander. An
unreasonable person may abuse the right of privilege in order to commit
defamation against another person. The right of privilege (or "qualified
privilege") being that a person has a right to make statements
during the trial process. This privilege often protects against an unreasonable
person who wishes to make defamation statements.
Misuse of Legal Procedure
Misuse of Legal Procedure is a series of torts that involve the
corrupt or undue filing of litigation for unlawful reasons. Public right of
access to courts is granted on good faith that claimants will act with probable
cause and honesty. Conversely, when a plaintiff in a lawsuit is found to have
initiated legal action for purposes of deliberate harassment or inconvenience
of the defendant, or when the court terminates the suit in favor of the
defense, the defense may seek damage compensation for losses incurred in the
legal process. These losses may be qualified under charges of Malicious
Prosecution, Wrongful Civil Proceedings or Abuse of Process.
Domestic Relations
Domestic Relations is an evolving area of Tort Law which deals
with a family's inner workings. The evolution of Domestic Relations Tort has
not only shaped the way that family's may collect for damages or interference
to the family unit itself resulting from tortious conduct; it has shaped the
way husbands, wives, children and legal guardians are viewed as legal entities.
Originally, under common law, children and wives were treated as chattels and
functioned under a man's proprietary rights. In the 1900's, several advances in
Family Law provided for the legal rights of women and children to act as
distinct legal entities from their husbands/fathers.
Survival & Wrongful Death
Survival and Wrongful Death are
tort claims made after the death of an individual in an at-fault situation.
This means that the deceased must be victim of a tort, before death or at the
time of death. Survival actions are raised by the executives of the victim's
estate, and are continuations of tort actions that the victim would have been
entitled to raise in life. Wrongful death claims are made by surviving
dependent's for the loss of the decedent's contributions to their lives.
Economic Relations
Torts of Economic Relations are allegations of direct interference
with business relationships, agreements, or prospects, which result in
quantifiable losses. When suing for Torts of Economic Relations, it is
important that the plaintiff be able to prove that the defendant acted
intentionally with knowledge of his or her own actions, and that the subsequent
actions were injurious to the claimant in the form of economic losses. Torts of
Economic Relations normally fall under classifications of Interference with
Contractual Relations, Interference with Prospective Advantage or claims of
Injurious Falsehood.
Immunities
In tort cases, there are certain intervening factors which allow
individuals immunity, from their actions. Immunity implies either, that the
person could not understand the risks associated with their actions or that
they can not be held liable because they were acting on behalf of the
government or other entity. Cases in which individuals are not likely to
understand the possible outcomes of their actions, include infant immunity or
insanity immunity.
Infant immunity applies to minors that are too young to grasp the
consequences of their actions. In addition, the minor must not have no intent
to cause harm to person or property. It can not be claimed that the minor did
not understand the consequences of their actions, if they intended the negative
consequences that resulted from their actions. Intent can not be present
without an understanding of possible outcomes. In cases that involve infant
immunity, the parents or guardians of the minor, could be held liable for their
actions, regardless of the minors understanding of the possible outcomes of
those actions.
Insanity immunity can be utilized as a defense in cases where a
person is deemed insane, or mentally incapable of understanding the possible outcomes
of an action. In cases where insanity immunity is a factor, the caregiver of
the person that acted in manner which caused a negative outcome, could be held
liable in the same manner that a parent or guardian could be liable for a
minor. In either case, the actor and those responsible for the care of the
actor, could both be held liable for the action.
