Four components of negligent tort liability and causation

Torts

The definition of a tort is a common breach committed toward a second party. In this injury toward another, one of the parties can sue the other for damages. Oftentimes when this involves personal injury. One party that has suffered injury, will file for compensation by bringing a claim against another to compensate for damages experienced. The application of the law in a tort case will decide if the party filed against is liable for the injury according to the law. The tort law will also determine what the required compensation is to amount to for the injured party. Essentially the four components applicable to tort law include causation, duty, injury and a breach of (expected) duty (Standler, 1999). The determining factor warranting damages is a breach of duty toward a plaintiff from the defendant that has caused injury. There are many different types of torts, however the three most often brought before tort law are strict liability, negligence, and intentional tort cases (Standler, 1999).

Causation is the actual failure to perform a necessary act that resulted in an injury to the plaintiff in a tort law case. The cause may be direct or indirect as in the case of several events or acts that resulted in an injury. This is also referred to as proximate cause (Farlex, 2011).

Duty is described as the reasonable requirement necessary to properly carry out or perform an act of service or care toward another party. The first step in determining negligence is to accurately establish the existence of duty.

An injury must be present in order in a valid tort case. An injury can be physical, financial, social or mental for which a plaintiff suffers or experiences loss. Some examples are loss of limb, or use of a limb, mental distress, even public humiliation (consider tabloid, or media stories, for example).

Breach occurs when the defendant has failed to commit the expected or preventive act toward a plaintiff that would avoid injury.

Proximate cause occurs when an event results in a failure to ensure safety toward a victim by performing the required act to avoid injury. The event causes an injury to a party thereby the trigger of proximate cause. This could be an intentional or unintentional injury. The event must be the cause of the injury. The existence of a proximate cause must be proven by the plaintiff as the primary reason the injury happened. If it can be proven that another cause was the primary act resulting in the injury this is called an intervening cause (Farlex, 2011). This may diminish the amount of damages the defendant is required to remit. In some cases the intervening cause can remove total liability for the injury from the defendant (Standler, 1999).

Strict liability

Strict liability is present when there is an injury to a plaintiff period. In this case negligence is not a required factor (Standler, 1999). The only requirement for strict liability is that an injury occurred to the plaintiff. An example of this would be a car accident where the driver does not have insurance. Even though this driver was not the cause of the accident, they are at fault simply by failing to uphold the law requiring valid insurance coverage. Another example would be a wet surface within a retail store. In many cases, regardless if the spill was the result of the plaintiff's carelessness or not, the retailer is liable. Another common occurrence may be food poisoning from a local restaurant. These type situations are considered dangerous by default and can be avoided when the defendants takes the correct precaution.

Intentional Tort

An Intentional Tort is defined as an injury suffered as a result of a willful act of the defending party. There is a threat of harm present that the defendant is aware of and fails to mitigate (Standler, 1999).

In this tort, the defendant must act on purpose with the objective of causing injury to the plaintiff. The most common intentional tort is when a person attacks another by punching them as in a starting a fight knowing full well that they would harm the other party. The act by the defendant is considered a wrongful act or an unreasonable event that results in a breach resulting in an injury to the plaintiff.

Compared to a negligent tort, the civil breach is not with intent or even direct awareness in a case of negligence. As compared to a liability or proximate cause tort, the defendant is at fault regardless of any defensive act they may have taken (.