Intentional Tort

1019 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Introduction to negligence

Tort is defined as civil wrong that interferes with one’s property or person. Basically broken down has it is intended to compensate you if someone’s sloppiness, thoughtlessness or deliberate transgression injures or damages you or your personal belongings. Tort derives from the Latin term tortus, which means “crooked, dubious, twisted.” There are three types of torts: intentional torts, negligence and strict liability. There are certain elements that are required to prove that a defendant acted with intentional torts, or negligence and strict liability.
First type of torts is intentional torts defined has a civil wrong that results from intentional conduct. Where the wrongdoer has the intent to act in a certain way. Intentional torts are assault, …show more content…

With this in mind a lot of negligence cases wouldn’t take place because people would be more aware of their actions and consequences to those actions. Second aspect of negligence is breach of duty this occurs where an obligation has been established and someone one does not fulfill it. Causation is the third phase of negligence occurring when there is actual proof that negligence occurred as a direct result of breach of duty. Last facet of negligence is the actual damages as a result of injury or accident. Courts decide to award compensation for damages due to negligence called compensatory or punitive damages. When accused of negligence a defendant can use one of these defenses such has contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of the risk and Immunity. Contributory negligence is when both parties are caupable. Comparative negligence both the defendant and plaintiff s at fault, both parties will share liability. Assumption of the risk plaintiff is knowledgeable of the risk of harm, but participate in the act anyways. Assumption of the risk has two categories these are Express assumption of the risk meaning a written agreement stating the plaintiff is aware of the risk and do not hold defendant liable and Implied primary assumption of the risk. According to Twomey&Jennings (2014)” Implied primary assumption of the risk arises when a plaintiff has implied consented, often in advance of any negligence by the defendant, to relieve a defendant of a duty to the plaintiff regarding specific known and appreciated risks”

Show More
Related

  • Perin V. Hayne Case Summary

    1160 Words  | 3 Pages

    “In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa

    Read More

  • The Burden of Proof in the Case of Darling vs. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital

    734 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law

    Read More

  • Essay On Gross Negligence Manslaughter

    1402 Words  | 3 Pages

    Gross negligence murder has been alluded as an automatic homicide, in which the defendant has no aims to enjoy a wrongdoing. The defendant is past all sensible uncertainty the reason for the passing; in any case, he neither expects to bring about physical damage or demise to anybody nor any grim plans to execute an individual. This mirrors that the defendant is said to not have the expectation for homicide. In legitimate terms, the defendant has no proposition of homicide. Gross negligence homicide has four crucial components, which are recorded as underneath:

    Read More

  • tort of negligent investigation

    1025 Words  | 3 Pages

    General speaking, a tort of negligence is a failure of someone or one party to follow a standard of care which means failed to do what a reasonable person do or do what a reasonable personal would not do. From the interest perspective, the tort of negligent investigation is an offence against private interest of an individual, corporation or government due to the negligent investigation. Whether a tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada is related to whether investigators owe a duty of care to person being investigated and what is the standard of care. Finally, a tort of negligent investigation only exist when there is a loss or injury to the suspect and the loss or injury was caused by the negligent investigation.

    Read More

  • Intentional Tort Law

    1027 Words  | 3 Pages

    These interests are violated by the intentional torts of assault, Battery, trespass, False Imprisonment, invasion of privacy, conversion, Misrepresentation, and Fraud. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called willful and wanton behavior, does not rise to the level of an intentional

    Read More

  • Intentional Tort

    1806 Words  | 4 Pages

    Nicole stepped on Caroline mistakenly, which was an unlawful touching. According to Elliott and Quinn there are three elements to this intentional tort; force, direct application and intent which is so in this case. However, according to Croom-Johnson LJ in the case of Wilson v Pringle “the first distinction between two causes of action where there is personal injury is the element of contact between the claimant and the defendant; that is touching of sort. In the action of negligence, the physical contact (where it takes place at all) is normally through by no means always unintended” . In the action of trespass to constitute battery, it is deliberate. Even so, it is not very intended contact, which is tortious. Apart from in acting in self-defence), there are many examples in everyday life where an i...

    Read More

  • Tort Reform

    1713 Words  | 4 Pages

    A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

    Read More

  • Tort Case Study In Common Law

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).

    Read More

  • Negligence Case Study

    935 Words  | 2 Pages

    Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.

    Read More

  • Assault Battery And Crime Essay

    1113 Words  | 3 Pages

    after suffering harm from the acts of the other party (Turner, 2013). A tort is a civil wrong

    Read More

  • The Purpose of the Law of Torts

    1562 Words  | 4 Pages

    Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.

    Read More

  • The Tort of Negligence

    1121 Words  | 3 Pages

    did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...

    Read More

  • Examples Of Tort Of Negligence

    1171 Words  | 3 Pages

    Negligence is a concept that was passed from Great Britain to the United States. It arose out of common law, which is made up of court decisions that considered whether a defendant had an obligation to act with greater care. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm and involves a failure to fulfill a duty that causes injury to another. Many torts depend on whether there was intent but negligence does not. Negligence looks to see whether the person had a duty to act with care. It emphasizes the need for people to act reasonably in society. This is important because accidents will happen. Negligence helps the law establish whether these accidents could have been avoided, if there was a breach of duty to act reasonably, and if that breach was the cause of injury to that person. By focusing on the conduct rather than the intent of the defendant, the tort of negligence reflects society’s desire to

    Read More

  • Negligence Case Study

    2378 Words  | 5 Pages

    In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...

    Read More

  • Liability for Omissions in Tort Law

    882 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)

    Read More

More about Intentional Tort

Open Document