Describe the Four Objectives of Tort Law Ch4 Review Questions

Civil suits ascend from damages suffered by 1 or more than persons or entities at the hands of some other person or entity. The damage can happen in a variety of circumstances, and may be intentional or unintentional. Unlike criminal cases, civil suits seek to provide some form of remedy for the loss suffered by an injured party. Civil suits are decided by judges and juries based on the specific situation, especially when violation of statutes, or laws, is not in question.

Figure vi.ii Civil suits are decided in courtroom by judges and juries. (Credit: Coffee/ pixabay/ License: CC0)

Torts

Civil suits involve unlike causes of action, and they are included in one full general nomenclature: torts. The give-and-take "tort" means "wrong" in French. Thus, torts are wrongs committed against others who suffer some grade of harm as a result. While these damages could as well be the result of criminal action, the criminal element of the matter is not tried in a civil lawsuit. The standard of proof is lower for civil suits, and a finding of liability in a tort example does not necessarily translate to guilt in a criminal case.

The actor of the wrongs has historically been called a tortfeasor. When a wrong is committed past a tortfeasor, impairment is done to another. Tort law seeks to address this impairment based on the circumstances of the upshot, which is based on fault. Civil lawsuits are used past the injured parties to seek redress for the loss associated with the tort. Unlike criminal proceedings, redress is oft provided in the class of money equally opposed to incarceration. As such, the burden of proof of error is lower. Theoffender, or tortfeasor, who commits the act is the accused in a civil suit. The plaintiff, who is the injured political party, files the lawsuit on which the ceremonious court volition make a decision. The offender ultimately becomes the defendant, who must reply to the accusations of the plaintiff in a civil conform.

During tort litigation, the guess and jury take certain split up functions (Kionka, 2013):

Functions During a Tort Litigation

The Approximate Decides Issues of Constabulary	The Jury Decides Questions of Fact
The duty of the accused to the plaintiff, if any	What happened
The elements of the defense	Legal consequences of what happened
Awarding of legal rules	The damages suffered by the plaintiff

Table 6.ane

Harm

Two types of torts are intentional torts and negligence. Intentional torts occur as the consequence of a conscious and purposeful human activity. Negligence occurs when an individual does non exercise duty of care. Torts are acts or omissions that result in injury or harm to an individual in such a style that it leads to a civil wrong that occurs every bit liability (WEX, due north.d.). In tort law, harm tin can be divers as a loss or disadvantage suffered every bit a result of the actions or omissions of some other (WEX, north.d.). This loss can exist concrete harm, such as slipping and falling on a wet floor, or personal property harm, such equally allowing water to ruin furniture. The damage is the result of what someone else did, or did not do, either intentionally or based on a lack of reasonable care.

In that location are two basic elements to torts: amercement and compensation (Laws, tort.laws.com). Tort constabulary acts to compensate persons who take suffered damages at the easily of another (Baime, 2018). Tort law determines the legal responsibility of the defendant and the value of the harm. Unlike types of torts expect at different types of circumstances.

Intentional Torts

Intentional torts are committed by an offender who understands that he or she is committing a tort. Intent does non always equate to direct causing an finish result. In some cases, the intent may exist something else, such equally the possession of knowledge that some impairment may occur. The damage may outcome from intentional action, or due to some circumstance that the offender feels will be excusable (Kionka, 2013).

Some circumstances that could permit the defendant to argue that the action is excusable would include: permission by the injured political party, or defense of holding, self, or another person (Kionka, 2013). If the injured party agrees to allow the accused to juggle knives and 1 slips and causes damage, the action might be excusable to some extent. If a defendant caused harm to the plaintiff'due south car while trying to avoid being striking by the car, it would probable exist excusable.

Different types of intentional torts are based on different circumstances and confront unlike remedies, or means of recovering losses (Baime, 2018):

• Set on is an intentional tort that occurs when an private has a reasonable apprehension of an intentional act that is designed to cause harm to himself or herself, or to another person.
• Malicious prosecution occurs when an individual files groundless complaints to initiate a criminal matter confronting some other.
• Defamation occurs when an individual intentionally creates and promotes malicious falsehoods about another. Defamation tin can occur in two ways: slander and libel. Slander is, in result, when falsehoods are spoken. Libel occurs when falsehoods are expressed in written or other recorded forums.
• Invasion of privacy involves unwanted product of negative public information. Different standards apply to invasion of privacy based on the status of the private as a public figure.

Negligence

Negligence is another blazon of tort that has two meanings. It is the name of a cause of activeness in a tort, and it is a form of carry that does not meet the reasonable standard of intendance (Kionka, 2013). The crusade of activeness is the reason for the damage, and the standard of care is based on the care that a reasonable person would need in a given situation. Negligence is decided past determining the duty of the defendant, whether or not the defendant committed a alienation of that duty, the cause of the injury, and the injury itself.

For an activity to be accounted negligent, at that place must be a legal duty of care, or responsibleness to deed, based on the reasonable standard in a situation (Baime, 2018). An individual can be considered negligent if he agreed to watch a child, but did not do and then, and then harm came to the child. An individual would not be considered negligent if he did not know that he was supposed to watch the child, or did not concord to spotter the child.

Figure vi.3 If an individual agrees to watch a child and the child is injured while that person pays attention to her cell phone, it would exist considered negligence. (Credit: JESHOOTScom/ pixabay/ License: CC0)

A reasonable person is defined as someone who must exercise reasonable care based on what he or she knows virtually the situation, how much experience he or she has with the situation, and how he or she perceives the situation (Kionka, 2013). In some cases, this knowledge could be based on common knowledge of customs matters, such as knowing that a span is closed for repairs.

In some cases, the duty of care is based on a special relationship, which is a relationship based on an implied duty of care. This implied duty of care often comes about equally a duty to aid, or a duty to protect another, e.k., a nurse caring for patients in a hospital, or a lifeguard being responsible for swimmers in the guarded area (Baime, 2018). A passerby does not have a duty to assistance, just if the individual tries to assist, then he or she is responsible for acting responsibly.

The elements of a negligence cause of action are (Kionka, 2013):

• A duty by the defendant to either act or refrain from acting
• A breach of that duty, based on a failure to conform to the standard of intendance by the defendant
• A causal connection between the accused's activity or inaction, and the injury to the plaintiff
• Measurable harm that can be remedied in monetary amercement

Foreseeability

Negligence case decisions are influenced by whether or non a defendant could take predicted that an action or inaction could take resulted in the tort, or foreseeability (Baime, 2018). Responsibleness is oft based on whether or not the harm caused by an action or inaction was reasonably foreseeable, which means that the result was fairly obvious earlier it occurred (Baime, 2018). A person assisting an inebriated individual into her car could exist considered negligent due to the likelihood that harm would come to her while she is driving in an intoxicated state. This situation is an example of the foreseeable probability of impairment.

Determination

Intentional torts and negligence arise based on intentional and unintentional acts committed by individuals. Damages are decided in ceremonious courts by first determining fault and harm, and then by assigning a remedy. Sometimes, the damage can exist excused if the circumstances indicate that the defendant acted with permission, or in his or her ain defense. The main standard used to brand a decision is the reasonable standard of intendance: what would a reasonable person practise?

tothpaidels.blogspot.com

Source: https://openstax.org/books/business-law-i-essentials/pages/6-1-intentional-torts-and-negligence

Share this post