Torts That Have Been Developed in Order

¶ … torts that have been developed in order foster the understanding of various civil wrongs when one is engaging in a business practice. These include the intentional, strict liability, and negligence torts. The torts have been classified according to the contextual framework by which they were committed. The following definitions have been widely accepted to define the different types of torts in business law.

An intentional Tort An intentional tort is a civil wrong that is said to be conducted by an offender who did the act intentionally leading to damage of another person or party. This may include torts like striking a person in a car, which may be termed as a battery tort (Allen, 2011). Negligence Tort Negligence tort is a civil wrong involving a person engaging in a civil offense due to negligence. In many cases, it involves a person engaging in a careless act that led to damages to another party.

In this tort, liability arises when the court proves that the defendant is negligent or intended to cause harm to the plaintiff (Dempsey, 2011). 1.3 Strict Liability Tort This civil wrong takes place where the accused had no intention to cause harm or be negligent. This tort is common in the society, such as, when a contractor's act of using dynamite that causes debris to be thrown to another house causing damages of the house.

Liability arises from the fact that the society feels it is a dangerous activity and must be punished (Allen, 2011). 2. Describe elements prove defenses The courts examine various elements in order to prove that a civil act falls in a given tort category. These elements provide a background against which a civil act may be classified and for judgments to be made against the given tort. The elements are used as checklist factors to establish the tort type that has taken place and every tort is classified from these elements.

The elements may be used to prove that the given act is a tort of a given kind (Lloyd, 2005). In order to prove that a given civil offense is an intentional tort, it must satisfy some conditions/elements. The first element is assault, which may be considered as a voluntary act of causing reasonable apprehension after an offensive contact. The second element of an intentional tort may relate to beatings/battery that is done intentionally. Battery involves impermissible harm or offensive contact with a person or to anything.

The aspect of contact is highly emphasized in this context. In other words, a crime involving offensive contact with a person leading to the harm of the other person would be categorized under the intentional torts. The third element of an intentional tort may involve 'false imprisonment'. For instance, a case involving a person being intentionally confined without legal authority may qualify as an intentional tort (Dempsey, 2011). In addition, the element of 'consent' has been applied to classify a civil action as an intentional tort.

This occurs when someone acts without permission in a manner that causes harm, yet he is expected to seek permission. A civil action may also be judged under an intentional act by looking at the element of 'necessity', where the defense of necessity gives the individual property of another, an act committed against the intentional torts of trespass. In other words, 'necessity' induces a privilege because of the private right entitled to someone.

The final element that may defend an act as an intentional act is the element of 'self-defense', which may involve civilians taking on an act for the sake of self-defense or defending the lives of others (Lloyd, 2005). Secondly, to prove that a given civil offense falls under 'negligence tort', some elements are often put into consideration. The first element is that of 'duty of care'. This element may come into play when someone fails to have some reasonable care when engaging in activities that may harm others.

The other element that may be used to defend an act as a negligence tort is that of 'breach of duty'. This means that the liability of negligence may not be provided unless the claimant proves that he/she was to be protected but the defendant failed to do so. For instance, a doctor who left the operation room without leaving the patient in a stable condition to come back when the patient had passed on, may be accused of negligence (Lynch, 2012).

Thirdly, some elements have also been established for defense in case a given civil act falls under strict liability tort. The first element that has been established is that of 'ultra-hazardous activity.' It may be argued out that someone engages in a dangerous activity and should face the liability regardless of whether whatever happened with reasonable precaution or not. The second element that of 'product liability' a company/business may be held liable for injuries caused by its products (Lynch, 2012).

The chosen tort of battery/beating in the year 1991 involved Rodney's (a black American) arrest on 3rd march, 1991. What happened was that Rodney was seen over speeding on the 210 freeway by officers. King took them by storm and led them on a chase up to 110 to 115 mph. He finally stopped, but refused to get into the prone position, and seemed to react towards one of the officers. He was beaten thoroughly by the police and arrested.

The background of this case comes at a time when acts of racism and racial prejudice were largely pronounced among state officers. Rodney had committed various offenses initially and beaten excessively. While defending himself at the court, he said he over-sped because he feared going back into police custody. He faced felony charges, which were later dropped. The footage of his beating was aired globally. It created a lot of outrage in many American cities with high racial tension and increased publicity about police prejudice in the treatment of minorities.

Later on, three of the officers were found guilty of physical attacks and using excess.