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 or crooked conduct can be considered to be a tort. For a period of time the use of the term tort in day-to-day speech was common, however, the current use is more confined to the legal system (Calnan, Alan). Thus the brief definition of this term in the legal language is 'a wrong whose remedy will be provided for by the law', this remedy is usually in many forms but more often has monetary value. The entire development process of law of torts happened in the common law courts. This means that judicial decisions were heavily relied upon by the plaintiffs. This means that rules governing the conduct between individuals in non-contractual operations were coined through various court cases. Through contracts individuals can come up with rights and responsibilities of how the operate, however, it was necessary to hold individuals legally accountable for whatever they did even when there is was no contract, thus the need for tort laws. These tort laws ensured that there is compensation for individuals experienced loss due to actions of others.
It is important to note that torts and crimes are different, even though there are a number of acts that can be considered as both crimes and torts. The major difference between these two laws is that in a crime the offender is punished while in torts the victim is compensated (Graham Stephenson). There are three kinds of torts; intentional tort, unintentional tort, and strict liability tort. This paper will discuss on the unintentional torts which is the topic in focus.
What is unintentional tort?
Unintentional tort, which is also referred to as tort of negligence transpires when there is injury suffered by one individual due to another individual's failure to meet required duty of care (Miller, and Jentz, 112). Whereas in intentional torts the offender wishes to achieve the consequences, in unintentional torts the tortfeasor has no wish to make happen the outcome of the act and does not believe that such an outcome would come forth. The conduct of the offender just brings about the risk associated with such an outcome, thus, without the risky situation arising then negligence cannot be considered. In addition, the associated risk must be forseeable, this means that any other person of average reasoning who chooses to participate in the very activity can forestall the risk and avoid it. It is therefore upon the courts to determine whether a conduct is reasonable or not and this is done by considering the nature of possible harm. For unintentional tort to be actionable, there are four elements that must be proven by the plaintiff, these include: 1. Duty of care, 2. Breach of that duty, 3. Injury requirement, and 4. Causation (Miller, and Jentz, 112). This is what can be referred to as the nature of unintentional torts.
Duty of care and its breach
The fundamental reasoning behind the unintentional tort is the idea of a 'duty of care'. The basic reasoning behind this element of duty of care is that, in a society people have the freedom to act as it may please them, however, this freedom is exercised to the extent that the interests of others are not infringed on the process. Each person therefore has the responsibility to exercise reasonable care failure to which there is the potential of committing a tort (Shapo, Marshall S.). An individual may fail to live up to a standard of care by either taking action (such as setting a car on fire) or through omission of action (such as neglecting to put out a campfire). Such acts may be out of carelessness or careful execution, but dangerous still and injury may be experienced. When it comes to the courts, they will consider the nature of the act, the way the act was executed, and the magnitude of the injury. In order to determine if the duty of care has been breached, the court try to find out how an individual considered to be reasonable exposed to the same circumstances would have acted. This is usually pegged upon the way the society expects people...
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
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
A misdemeanor is punishable up to a year in a country jail (Cooley). In the case of Bill and Joe, Bill's action fulfills all the four elements required to prove a criminal threat. If Bill became successful with his threat, he could have killed or severely injured Joe with the bat. His words conveyed his intent to kill Joe. The intent was clear and complete from his utterance. The threat
The questions on legal liability issues were minimal as the field of legal issues is new in nursing. The questions addressed a theoretical part regarding the legal liability issues. They were no need of clarification since the questionnaires were easy and self -- administrative. Although the researcher was there for assistance but telephonically. 1.7. Data analysis In this chapter, the analysis is discussed in detail. Data was collected by means of
Dangerfield and Associate Entities Upon examining this case, it's clear that the claims made by Hartman are completely legitimate. The claims made by Mitchell are somewhat legitimate. This paper will first examine the basis of the lawsuit waged by Hartman, as the bulk of the valid accusations made are made by this particular plaintiff. The crux of Hartman's lawsuit is based on the claim that Dangerfield was liable for the negligence
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: 1) Did the SBL agreement constitute the contract between the parties? 2) Was Plaintiffs' case barred by the parole evidence rule? 3) Should the trial court have sustained Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiffs' case? Holding / Rule of Law: 1) The SBL agreement did not constitute the contract between the parties. The contracts were formed when Plaintiffs accepted Defendants offer and tendered their consideration. Therefore, the SBL agreement and addendum
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now