What is Tort Law?

The word tort has been derived from Old French utilizing the Norman Conquest and Latin through the Roman Empire. Under the jurisdiction of common law, a tort is an act of liability of a person who has committed a tortious act as a result that causes loss or injury to the plaintiff (no breach of contract). This includes intentional mental distress, negligence, economic loss, injury, and invasion of privacy. 

Tort law refers to claims made in a civil action to acquire a private legal remedy, usually monetary damages. In nations where the civil and criminal legal systems are independent, an unlawful act, such as assault and battery, may result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution.

“This means “a tort or personal or civil harm, including malicious breaches of contract in which courts often offer remedies in the form of claims for damages[I]. The United States and grammar are rooted in the British customary law system. Most of the US grammar and grammar has been developed by judges through years of written commentaries on specific cases. The content of the law is fluid, and new cases have prompted judges to reconsider, confirm or modify their previous views to resolve previously unacceptable issues. 

In the United States, there are methods of tort to remedy the harm suffered by individuals as a result of the conduct of others who do not meet management standards determined by civil courts.

Types 

Tort law in the United States encompasses a wide range of causes of action, including responsibility deriving from: (1) intentional misconduct; (2) unreasonable conduct; (3) faults in the design, manufacture, or marketing of items supplied; and (4) one’s relationship to the tortfeasor. The fundamental goal of tort law is to compensate persons or organizations who have suffered personal or property loss as a result of another’s improper action, as well as to prevent further wrongdoing wherever possible.

1. Intentional Torts

Intentional torts occur when the defendant intends or knows with a high degree of confidence that his action would harm the plaintiff. Battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), trespass to land, defamation, trespass to chattels, conversion, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and fraud are among them.

Tort liability is concerned with intent, not necessarily hostile purpose or a wish to cause injury. Rather, it is the intention to achieve a goal that will infringe on the rights of others in a way that the law will not allow.

In the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants[II] Under this case, a 79-year-old woman received third-degree burns to her pelvic region after spilling hot coffee in her lap after buying it at a McDonald’s restaurant. Liebeck was granted $640,000 in the end. Liebeck was admitted to the hospital for eight days for skin grafting, followed by two years of medical care.

2. Negligence

When it comes to unintended torts, negligence is the most typical source of common law. Most Americans are under the feeling that the vast majority can sue for negligence, however, it is false in many US jurisdictions (part of the way since negligence is one of only a handful few torts for which normal individuals can and do acquire responsibility protection.)

It is a type of extra-contractual liability for a reasonable person’s breach of a duty of care, such breach as the cause of actual damage and the approximate cause of the damage. In other words, the act or omission of torture does not give rise to compensation for the damage caused to the plaintiff, and the restitution is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the tort.

In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[III] Under this case, it was held that the manufacturer owed her a duty of care, which was infringed because it was fairly foreseeable that failing to assure the product’s safety would result in consumer harm, according to the House of Lords. In addition, consumers and goods producers had sufficiently close contact.

3. Strict Liability

The term “strict liability” refers to the fact that the tortfeasor’s liability is based solely on the conduct it or its effect, rather than on their guilty state of mind (whether they knew or meant to commit the wrongful act or whether they violated a standard of care by doing so).

Strict responsibility torts are brought when injuries occur as a result of ultra-hazardous activity, and the defendant is held accountable even though he or she was not negligent. Some forms of product liability claims, as well as copyright infringement and some trademark issues, are subject to strict responsibility. Some statutory torts, such as numerous environmental torts, are also strict liability.

In the case of Rylands v Fletcher[IV] Under this case, Independent contractors were hired by the defendants to build a reservoir on their property. The defendant was found guilty by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and their verdict was upheld by the House of Lords.

4. Vicarious Liability

Individuals and entities in the United States are liable under tort law solely because of their link to the tortfeasor. The term “vicarious liability” refers to “indirect or assumed legal responsibility for the acts of another. On the off chance if an employee causes an accident while acting inside the course and extent of his employment, the employer, even if not at fault, might be at risk for the negligence moving from its employee’s.

In the case of Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd. V Macdonald & Evans[V] In this case, a contract of service was held to be a contract for work that is an essential aspect of the business, whereas a service contract was held to be a contract for work that is not essential to the firm.

Proving Liability

• Burden of Proof

The onus of proof is defined as “a party’s obligations to establish through evidence a required degree of belief in a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court.” The plaintiff has the initial burden of proof in a civil action. Although the burden of proof may shift to the defendant in some circumstances, such as when the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case, the plaintiff bears the duty of proof throughout the trial. On all affirmative defenses claimed in response to a Complaint, however, the defendant bears the burden of evidence.

• Obligation

The expression “obligation” is utilized through the Restatement of Torts “to indicate the way that the entertainer is needed to behave in a specific way at the danger that on the off chance that he doesn’t do so he gets subject to respond to another to whom the obligation is owed for any injury supported by such other, of which that entertainer’s lead is a legitimate reason.”

• Proximate Cause

Most torts require that the defendant’s actions be the direct cause of the plaintiff’s injury. “Injury or damage proximately caused by any act or omission, if the evidence of the case suggests that the act or omission played a significant role in the actual cause or omission, Injury or damage, and result.

In the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.[VI]  The defendant was found not to be responsible to the claimant. In this regard, it was determined that to establish a negligence claim, a claimant must show that her rights were violated in some way. While it was agreed that the guards who caused the fireworks package to fall were negligent, it was not agreed that they were negligent to the claimant.

Remedies

Damages are the way through which a party that has been damaged in a tort is rewarded for the harm that has been caused, and an injured party is generally entitled to collect damages for the tort’s natural and likely consequences. Compensatory and punitive damages are the most common types of damages.

• Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages are intended to make the aggrieved person whole by compensating him or her for injuries experienced as a result of the defendant’s actions. Economic, non-economic, and physical impairment or disfigurement losses are the most common types of compensatory damages.

• Punitive Damages

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are intended to punish the defendant and make a public spectacle of him or her to deter future misconduct. Punitive damages, like non-economic losses, are frequently restricted by statute.

Conclusion

Tort law concepts pervade modern society because they define the obligations of care that we owe to one another in our personal lives. Because modern technology provides major dangers and the modern market is so efficient at delivering items to a wide range of consumers, tort law has had a considerable impact on business. Tort law, unlike criminal law, does not need the tortfeasor to have a particular purpose to perform the act for which he or she may be held accountable for damages. Tort liability is heavily influenced by negligence or carelessness. In some cases, particularly where injuries are caused by-products, a no-fault standard is known as strict responsibility is used.

References

I- Michael R. McCurdy and Jason B. Robinson, Tort Law in the United States, Fairfield, and Woods.

II- 1994 Extra LEXIS 23

III- [1932] UKHL 100

IV- [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330

V- (1952) 1 TLR 101

VI-248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253