Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Negligent Tort
In basic terms, a tort can be defined as a civil wrong. In this case, it is the victim of wrongful conduct who brings action against the alleged wrongdoer. The alleged wrongdoer in tort law is referred to as the defendant while the claimant or plaintiff is the victim who suffers as a result of the conduct of the defendant. In a way, negligent tort is taken to be the most significant of all torts. In this text, I concern myself with negligent tort.
The Elements of a Negligent Tort
In Stuhmcke's (2001) own words, "negligence is a tort which determines legal liability for careless actions or inactions which cause injury." Hence effectively, its occurrence can be said to take place in those instances where an individual causes harm to another individual as a result of his or her failure to take the legally required care. It can be noted that when it comes to negligent tort, several elements exist. These elements which are essential in proving a negligence action include proximate causation, duty of care, breach and harm or damage (Stuhmcke, 2001).
Proximate Causation
According to Statsky (2011), this is a cause which can be considered sufficient in legal terms to impose liability for that which is brought about by an individual's wrongful omission or act. When it comes to proximate cause, there are two main components. These include legal cause and actual cause. While legal cause...
Hence to establish legal cause, it must be shown that the original risk brought about by the defendant was what informed the foreseeable consequence i.e. harm. On the other hand, to establish actual cause, it must be shown that the harm was in fact caused by the defendant. According to Statsky (2011), in most cases, once actual cause has been established, it becomes quite easy to establish legal cause.
Duty of care
A duty in this case is essentially taken to be an obligation to adhere to a given standard as provided for in law. According to Statsky (2011), when it comes to negligence cases, the obligation to avoid causing loss or injury as a foreseeable risk by using reasonable care is what is referred to as a duty. Further, it should be noted that when it comes to the duty of reasonable care, there is an embodied standard referred to as due care. Statsky (2011) also notes that in most negligence cases, there is a general rule of duty which calls for the identification of loss or injury as foreseeable risks.
Breach of Duty
As an element of negligent tort, breach of duty arises in an instance where there is reason to believe that the defendant's conduct which appears…
References
Emerson, R.W. (2009). Business Law. Baron's Educational Series.
Miller, R.L. & Jentz, G.A. (2009). Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. Cengage Learning.
Statsky, W.P. (2011). Essentials of Torts. Cengage Learning.
Stuhmcke, A. (2001). Essential Tort Law. Routledge
However, this aspect of tort law does not apply equally to all areas of tort law. For example, under theories of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a tortfeasor's behavior has to shock the conscience of the court. That a particular victim is particularly sensitive does not increase a tortfeasor's liability. Finally, tort law does not always involve one wrongdoer and one victim. In fact, both parties can have some liability
So denotes the text by Coleman (2003), which indicates that "tort law establishes conditions under which victims can shift at least some of the costs they incur to others. All individuals realize that they may be subject to a judgment against them in torts and so many buy third party insurance to protect them from bearing the full costs of those judgments. In some jurisdictions purchasing third party insurance
TORT LAW Tort Law: Liebeck v. McDonald�sStep 1For this discussion, I elected to focus on the Liebeck v. McDonald�s (1994) case. Sometimes in 1992, Liebeck bought coffee from McDonald�s which she ended up spilling on her lap � causing third degree burns on her thighs as well as genital area. She later on filed a suit accusing the fast-food and restaurant chain of negligence in the United States District Court
Australian Tort Law on Wilkinson v Downton Talk about whether or not the trigger of action in Wilkinson v Downton provides a viable remedy to victims of intentionally inflicted psychiatric harm in Australia these days. The Wilkinson v Downton judgment created a considerable frame of jurisprudence not only in England, but additionally within America, as well, dealing with claims relating to "outrageous as well as extreme conduct deliberately or perhaps recklessly leading
Negligence Torts, Duty of Care and Available Remedies People commit torts all the time, intentionally and unintentionally, and many of these are dismissed, excused, ignored or otherwise allowed to transpire without resorting to litigation for remedies. For instance, if someone's foot is stepped on a couple of times in a crowded elevator, it may be a tort but it also may not be a big deal. In some cases, though, the
Unintentional Torts In order to get a good understanding of unintentional torts, it is important to first understand the term tort. The term tort is a French word whose English equivalent is the term wrong. It has also been considered to be a derivative of the Latin word tortum which can be loosely translated as twisted or crooked or wrong (Best, Arthur, and Barnes, 2). It therefore means that a wrong