Key Elements Of Common Law Tort Claims

Tort law is a form of restorative justice that covers most civil suits, addressing private wrongs and compensating victims for their losses. Tort law is distinct from criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs punishable by the state, and contract law, which provides civil remedies after a breach of duty arising from a contract. Common law tort claims can be categorised into negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability torts. Negligent torts occur when the defendant fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to the plaintiff. Intentional torts involve willful misconduct by the defendant, such as assault, fraud, or theft. Strict liability torts focus on the act itself rather than the culpability of the defendant and include product liability claims.

Explore related products

Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$157.29 $359

Examples & Explanations for The Law of Torts

$67.83 $76.95

Tort Law: Principles in Practice: Principles in Practice [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$169.6 $359

Torts: Cases and Questions [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$280.29 $359

Torts, Law Essentials: Governing Law for Law School and Bar Exam Prep

$26.95

Torts QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide (QuickStudy Law)

$7.41 $7.95

Negligence

For example, in a leading case discussed by Holmes, a farmer was warned that his hayrick was at risk of spontaneous combustion. His attempt to reduce the risk increased it instead, and the fire spread to his neighbour's cottages. Although the court accepted that the farmer had acted to the best of his abilities, he was still held liable for the damage caused by his negligence.

To establish a remedial claim in a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's act satisfies each element of the tort. In other words, the plaintiff must show that they have suffered a foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty by the defendant. This can include physical injuries, emotional distress, economic losses, or violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights.

In some cases, gross negligence that endangers the lives of others may be considered both a tort and a crime. For instance, battery can be addressed under both criminal and tort law. In such cases, tort law would typically provide monetary compensation to the plaintiff, while criminal law would focus on rehabilitating the defendant and deterring future misconduct.

Furthermore, comparative negligence is a legal defence that can reduce the plaintiff's compensation based on their degree of fault in causing the injury. Under standard comparative negligence, the plaintiff can seek damages regardless of their portion of liability. However, some jurisdictions have adopted a "modified" doctrine, where the plaintiff can only recover damages if they are less than 50% at fault.

Explore related products

Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials (University Casebook Series)

$259.3 $305

Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems: Cases, Statutes, and Problems [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$170 $359

Tort Law for Paralegals (Aspen Paralegal Series)

$96.78 $225.95

Personal Injury and the Law of Torts for Paralegals: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Paralegal)

$196.02

Understanding Torts (Understanding Series)

$46.7 $55

Tort Law: Concepts and Applications

$246.65 $246.65

Intentional torts

A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm to another person. Torts are differentiated from crimes, which are wrongs against the state or society. Tort law aims to compensate the victims of harm caused by the actions of others.

Some common intentional tort claims include:

• Assault: The immediate intentional creation of apprehension of another without consent or privilege.
• Battery: The intentional harmful or offensive touching of another without consent or privilege.
• False imprisonment: Confinement or bounding of an individual without a means of egress.
• Trespass: Entering someone's land or handling their items without permission.
• Conversion: Taking possession of someone else's property with the intention of not returning it.
• Dignitary torts: Violations of an individual's dignity, reputation, or privacy, including defamation and intrusion on seclusion.

In some jurisdictions, such as Australia, intentional torts are not included in civil liability legislation, and it is harder to prove them as the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant's mental state and intent.

Explore related products

The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Torts

$9.99 $20.29

Torts: Essential Law Self-Teaching Guide (Essential Law Self-Teaching Guides)

$26.95

Tort Law

$161.57 $233.95

Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress

$190 $280

Common Law Handbook: For Juror's, Sheriff's, Bailiff's, and Justice's

$5

The Common Law

$15.19 $15.95

Strict liability

For example, in the case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, a manufacturer was held strictly liable for a defective power tool that caused severe injury, without the need to prove negligence. This case established the principle that manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their products are safe for consumers. Strict liability also applies to abnormally dangerous activities, such as handling explosives or toxic substances, where the potential for harm is inherently high. In such cases, defendants are expected to take every possible precaution to prevent harm, and their failure to do so can result in strict liability.

In the United States, strict liability has been applied to vaccines since the Cutter incident in 1955, leading to the removal of certain vaccines from the market due to liability risks. To address this, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) was enacted in 1986 to create a no-fault compensation scheme for vaccine-related injuries, balancing the need for compensation with the stability of the vaccine market.

While strict liability simplifies court decisions and discourages reckless behaviour, it has also faced controversy due to the potential unfairness of holding defendants liable regardless of their intentions. In response, some scholars argue that the more lenient punishments associated with strict liability offences mitigate this unfairness. Additionally, strict liability can prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defences, as intent is not a factor in these cases.

Explore related products

Common Law Handbook

$10.99

A Concise History of the Common Law

$14.19

The Common Law: Original Version

$17.99

Common Law Court Handbook

$10.99

Origins of the Common Law

$9.2 $12

COMMON LAW GRAND JURY HANDBOOK

$6.99

Defences

There are several defences available to defendants facing common law tort claims, which, if proven, can reduce or eliminate their liability. Here are some of the key defences:

Consent

Consent by the plaintiff to the defendant's intentional tort, whether oral or written, is a legitimate defence. For example, consent is given by two boxers to be struck with fists during a boxing match. However, the consent has limits and does not extend to actions outside the scope of the consent, such as biting.

Self-Defence

Self-defence is a valid defence against intentional tort claims. The law recognises the right of individuals to defend themselves by using reasonable and necessary physical force when they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of harm or offensive contact.

Contributory Negligence or Comparative Negligence

Under the principle of contributory negligence, if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm they suffered, it can reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, considers the relative fault of both parties and apportions liability accordingly.

Assumption of Risk

If the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of harm by engaging in a particular activity or undertaking a risky task, the defendant may be partially or completely excused from liability.

Act of God

An Act of God defence argues that the harm was caused by natural forces beyond human control, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. This defence can relieve the defendant of liability, as it was not within their control to prevent the harm.

Affirmative Defences

In negligence lawsuits, defendants may raise affirmative defences, which, if proven, can relieve them of responsibility even if the plaintiff's claims of negligence are true. These defences are specific and depend on the jurisdiction and the nature of the tort claim.

Explore related products

Common Law Community Training Manual: Establishing the Reign of Natural Liberty: the Common Law and Its Courts

$8

Express Trusts Under the Common Law (Classic Reprint)

$8.74

Common Law & Natural Rights

$15.99

County Sheriff's Common Law Handbook

$6.99

The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny

$5

The Common Law: Original Edition

$4.99

Remedies

The primary remedy for plaintiffs under tort law is compensation in the form of monetary damages. The purpose of tort law is to compensate individuals who have suffered harm as a result of the actions of others, rather than to punish the wrongdoer. This compensation is intended to provide full coverage for the losses or injuries sustained, including loss of past or future income, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. In certain cases, punitive damages may be awarded in addition to compensatory damages to deter future misconduct. Nominal damages, which are very small awards, may be granted when the plaintiff has proven their case but has suffered little harm.

Tort law covers a wide range of civil suits, including negligence, intentional harm, and strict liability. Negligent torts occur when the defendant fails to exercise a reasonable standard of care, resulting in harm to the plaintiff. Intentional torts, on the other hand, are caused by the willful misconduct of the defendant, such as assault, fraud, and theft. Strict liability torts focus on the act itself rather than the culpability of the defendant, as seen in product liability cases where the manufacturer is held liable for selling defective products.

In some cases, the court may grant an injunction instead of or in addition to monetary damages. An injunction compels the defendant to cease an activity or perform a certain legal obligation. For example, in the English case of Miller v Jackson, an injunction was granted to stop a continuing tort. In certain jurisdictions, such as Australia, the courts can order specific performance to ensure the defendant carries out their legal obligations, particularly in nuisance matters.

While tort law varies by state, judges have the latitude to interpret statutes and determine the appropriate measure of damages. The Restatement of Torts serves as an influential guide for many courts. In the United States, there have been calls for tort reform to address frivolous cases that waste public resources.

Frequently asked questions