# data[].attributes.body
This document answers the required questions.

# data[].attributes.body
This image explains an example of tort law using battery.

# data[].attributes.body
This image list the four elements of tort law with relation to negligence.

# data[].attributes.body
This image explains the difference between a Tort and Crime.

# data[].attributes.headline
Websites On Tort Law And Tort Law Elements

# data[].attributes.subject
Websites On Tort Law And Tort Law Elements

# data[].attributes.body
This website will explain negligence in tort law with the use of examples from real cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Relevant to F4 (IRL), (SCT) and (UK)

If there's one area of the F4 syllabus that students appear to struggle with, it's the tort of negligence. (For F4 (SCT) a tort is a delict.) The examiners' reports indicate that students do not understand the subject very well - in particular, the various elements that a claimant must prove in order for the defendant to be found negligent. This article addresses each of the key elements in turn, but we begin with an explanation of why tort developed.

Torts are legal wrongs that one party suffers at the hands of another. Negligence is a form of tort which evolved because some types of loss or damage occur between parties that have no contract between them, and therefore there is nothing for one party to sue the other over.

In the 1932 case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the House of Lords decided that a person should be able to sue another who caused them loss or damage even if there is no contractual relationship. Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer by a friend, who had purchased it for her. After drinking half the contents, she noticed that the bottle contained a decomposing snail and suffered nervous shock as a result. Under contract law, Donoghue was unable to sue the manufacturer because her friend was party to the contract, not her.

However, the House of Lords decided to create a new principle of law that stated everyone has a duty of care to their neighbour, and this enabled Donoghue to successfully sue the manufacturer for damages.

Let's consider a hypothetical case and use it to demonstrate how the tort of negligence works. Harry is involved in an accident in which his car is hit by one driven by Alex. As a consequence of the accident Harry breaks a leg and is unable to work for two months. Can Harry sue Alex for damages?

On the face of things the answer seems obvious. Harry was injured as a result of Alex driving into his car and so it seems fair that he should be able to sue him. However, think of the situation from Alex's point of view, is it fair that Harry should be able to sue him just like that? People have accidents everyday - should they all be able to sue each other for every little incident? If they are then the courts would be overwhelmed with cases.

Thankfully, in order to prove negligence and claim damages, a claimant has to prove a number of elements to the court.

These are:

the defendant owed them a duty of care

the defendant breached that duty of care, and

they suffered loss or damage as a direct consequence of the breach.

Even if negligence is proved, the defendant may have a defence that protects them from liability, or reduces the amount of damages they are liable for.

Element 1 - The duty of care

As we saw earlier, the concept of a duty of care was created in the Donoghue case. The House of Lords stated that every person owes a duty of care to their neighbour. The Lords went on to explain that 'neighbour' actually means 'persons so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected'. This is a very wide (and complicated) definition that could include almost anyone - if still in operation today the courts would most certainly be overrun with cases.

The later cases of Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1977) and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) restricted the definition a little by introducing 'proximity' and 'fairness'.

Proximity simply means that the parties must be 'sufficiently close' so that it is 'reasonably foreseeable' that one party's negligence would cause loss or damage to the other. Fairness means that it is 'fair, just and reasonable' for one party to owe the duty to another.

What does this mean for Harry? I think you'll agree that Alex owes him a duty of care. There is sufficient proximity (ie Alex drove into Harry's car); it is reasonably foreseeable that a collision between the cars could cause Harry some injury, and it seems fair, just and reasonable for Alex to owe a duty of care to Harry (and indeed all other road users).

Element 2 - breach of duty of care

In many cases brought before the courts it is evident that a duty of care exists between the defendant and the claimant. The real issue is whether or not the actions of the defendant were sufficient to meet their duty. To determine this, the court will set the standard of care that they should have met. This standard consists of the actions which the court considers a 'reasonable person' would have taken in the circumstances. If the defendant failed to act reasonably given their duty of care, then they will be found to have breached it.

This 'reasonable' standard may be adjusted given the actual circumstances of the case. For example, if the claimant is vulnerable, such as being disabled or frail, it is reasonable to expect the defendant to have paid them special attention or taken extra care over them as compared to someone who is fit and healthy.

Other circumstances which may be taken into account include whether:

The actions the defendant took are in line with common practice or industry recommendations. If they were, then it is likely that the defendant will be found to have met their duty unless the common practice itself is found to be negligent.

There was some social benefit to the defendant's actions. If there was, then the court may consider it inappropriate for them to be found to have breached their duty.

The defendant's actions had a high probability of risk attached to them. If they did, then the court will expect them to show they took extra precautions to prevent loss or damage.

There were practical issues that prevented reasonable precautions being taken, or unreasonable cost would have been involved in taking them. If there were, then the court is unlikely to expect the defendant to have taken them in order to meet their duty of care.

The defendant is a professional carrying on their profession. If they were, then the court will judge their actions against a reasonable professional in their line of work, rather than just any ordinary person. If professional guidelines are in place then the court will judge the defendant's actions against these rather than its own expectations.

Back to the case of Harry and Alex. In determining whether or not Alex broke his duty of care, a court will consider whether or not, given the circumstances, he drove as a reasonable person would have. For example, if it was foggy or wet at the time, he would be expected to show that he drove cautiously. In determining whether Alex's actions were reasonable, evidence may have to be taken from witnesses and expert analysis of the crash may be required. For now, let's assume Alex was not driving reasonably.

In extraordinary cases, the facts may be so overwhelmingly in favour of the claimant that the court decides the defendant should prove that they were not negligent. The legal term for this is res ipsa loquitur (meaning the facts speak for themselves). It applies in circumstances where the cause of the injury was under the control of the defendant and that the incident would not have occurred if they had taken proper care. It is often applied in medical cases, for example in Mahon v Osborne (1939), a surgeon had to prove it was not negligent to leave a swab inside a patient.

Element 3 - loss or damage as a result of the breach

In this element the claimant simply has to prove that the loss or damage was a direct consequence of the defendant's breach of duty of care. In other words that there is a chain of causality from the defendant's actions to the claimant's loss or damage. A simple test, called the 'but for' test is applied. All the claimant has to prove is that if it were not 'but for' the actions of the defendant then they would not have suffered the loss or damage.

Where there is more than one possible cause of the loss or damage, the defendant will only be liable if it can be proved that their actions are the most likely cause.

A good case which illustrates how the 'but for' test operates is Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC (1969) - another medical case. A casualty department doctor negligently sent a patient home - the patient died. However, the doctor was not found liable for damages because the patient was suffering from arsenic poisoning and would have died no matter what the negligent doctor could have done.

The loss itself must not be 'too remote'. It is an important principle that people should only be liable for losses which they should have reasonably foreseen as a potential outcome of their actions. The Wagon Mound (1961) is a case often cited in explanation of this principle. Oil leaked out of the defendant's boat within Sydney harbour and came into contact with some cotton waste which had fallen into the water. The oil was of a particular type which would not foreseeably catch fire on water. However, the cotton ignited and this in turn set the oil ablaze causing damage to the claimant's wharf. The defendants were not found liable for fire damage as the actual cause of the fire was held too remote.

Novus actus intervieniens

Other events, which are outside the control of the defendant, may intervene in the chain of causality - adding some confusion to the outcome of a case. The good news is that there are some simple rules to remember that deal with them.

At all times you should bear in mind that the defendant will only be liable if their actions are the most probable cause of the loss or damage. They will not be liable if an intervening act becomes the real cause. Examples of intervening acts which remove liability from the defendant include:

Actions of the claimant which are unreasonable, or outside what the defendant could have foreseen in the circumstances.

Actions of a third party which become the real cause of the loss or damage. The defendant is only liable for damages up until the point when the third party intervened.

Unforeseeable natural events - natural events which the defendant could have reasonably foreseen do not affect things.

Let's return to Harry and Alex. It is entirely possible for the accident to be caused by a third party driving into Alex, forcing him into Harry. It is also possible that Harry himself was an intervening factor - maybe he was driving erratically. Either of these factors could mean that Alex's breach of duty is not the real cause of Harry's injuries.

For now, let's assume that no third party is involved and that any actions Harry took are not enough to take the blame for the cause of the accident away from Alex. The court will therefore find Alex liable for negligence to Harry.

There are two defences a defendant can use where they are found liable for negligence. One will exonerate them completely; the other reduces the level of damages they are liable for.

Volenti non fit injuria simply means the voluntary acceptance of the risk of injury. If a defendant can prove the claimant accepted the risk of loss or damage, they will not be liable. Acceptance can be express (usually by a consent form being signed) or implied through the claimant's conduct.

Contributory negligence takes part of the blame away from the defendant if it can be proved the claimant contributed in some way to their loss or damage. The defendant is still liable, but will face a reduced damages payout.

In Harry and Alex's case, volenti is not an issue - in no way did Harry consent to the accident. However, if his actions contributed in some way to his injuries, maybe by not wearing a seatbelt, then he may find the amount of damages he receives is reduced.

Use of cases in exam answers

Finally, a brief word about using cases in exam answers. Students are often concerned about how many cases they should quote, or what happens if they cannot remember a case name. The simple fact is that students fail this exam because they do not know the law - not because they cannot remember a case name.

My advice on cases is:

1. Get to grips with the principles of law first, then learn case names if you have time. By learning the law you will probably find that you remember the major cases anyway.

2. Don't try to learn every case in your textbook - the majority are there to illustrate how the law was applied in a particular set of circumstances. Instead, go for the major ones in each syllabus area and learn those.

3. All you need to learn is the case name and the principle of law it created - you do not need to learn and regurgitate all the background to the case in the exam.

4. If you forget a case name in the exam, don't let this stop you from explaining the principle of law, just write 'In a case it was decided that...' and continue with the principle.

As an example, consider this article - only six cases were mentioned. See if you can remember their names.

Stephen Osborne is a technical author at BPP Learning Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The examiners' reports indicate that students do not understand the subject very well - in particular, the various elements that a claimant must prove in order for the defendant to be found negligent. This article addresses each of the key elements in turn, but we begin with an explanation of why tort developed.

# data[].attributes.body
This website will help you gain a better understanding of tort law by providing the definition with multiple examples from cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tort law refers to the set of laws that provides remedies to individuals who have suffered harm by the unreasonable acts of another. Tort law is based on the idea that people are liable for the consequences of their actions, whether intentional or accidental, if they cause harm to another person or entity. Torts are the civil wrongs that form the basis of civil lawsuits. To explore this concept, consider the following tort law definition.

Definition of Tort Law
Noun

An area of law that deals with the wrongful actions of an individual or entity, which cause injury to another individual's or entity's person, property, or reputation, and which entitle the injured party to compensation.
Origin of Tort
1350-1400 Middle English (injury, wrong)

What is Tort Law

Tort law is the body of laws that enables people to seek compensation for wrongs committed against them. When someone's actions cause some type of harm to another, whether it be physical harm to another person, or harm to someone's property or reputation, the harmed or injured person or entity may seek damages through the court.

Damages are a monetary award ordered by the court to be paid to an injured party, by the party at fault. Damages may be awarded in compensation for loss of, or damage to, personal or real property, for an injury, or for a financial loss.

The types of damages that may be awarded by the court for civil wrongs, called "tortious conduct," of an individual or entity include:

Tort Liability

The legal term tort refers to an action in which one person or entity causes injury, harm, or damage to another person or entity. A tort liability may occur as a result of intentional acts, a negligent act, a failure to act when the individual had a duty to act, or a violation of statutes or laws. The individual who commits the tortious act (the act leading to the tort liability claim) is called the " tortfeasor," and is the defendant in this type of civil lawsuit. Such a defendant is generally held liable for damages or harm suffered by the plaintiff, as a result of the defendant's acts.

In many tort liability cases, the damages or injury suffered by the plaintiff do not have to be physical injury. A defendant in a tort liability case, who is found to be liable for his or her tortious acts, may be ordered to pay damages for harm, such as violation of personal rights, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.

Types of Tort

There are a number of specific types of tort that form the basis of the majority of civil lawsuits in the United States. These include, among others:

Tort law divides most specific torts into three general categories:

1. Intentional Torts - the causing of harm by an intentional act, such as intentionally conning someone out of his money.

2. Negligent Torts - the causing of harm through some negligent act, such as causing a car accident by running a red light.

3. Strict Liability Torts - the result of harm incurred due to the actions of another, with no finding of fault by the defendant.

Additional and separate specific torts include:

Intentional Torts

Intentional torts are acts committed with the intent to harm another, or to deliberately interfere with an individual's rights to bodily safety, emotional tranquility, privacy, control over property, freedom from deception, and freedom from confinement. Intentional torts commonly include such issues as assault and/or battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, theft, property damage, fraud or other deception, and trespassing.

Intent is a key issue in proving an intentional tort, as the injured party, called the Plaintiff, must prove to the court that the other party, called the Respondent or Defendant, acted intentionally, and knew that his actions could cause harm. In some cases, the Plaintiff need only prove that the Defendant should have known that his actions could cause harm. Many intentional torts may also be charged as criminal offenses.
For example:
Raymond stops by the local bar for a few drinks before he heads home after work. After drinking four cocktails, Raymond gets into his car, and runs a stop sign, crashing into another car, seriously injuring its occupants. Although Raymond might argue that he didn't know he would hurt someone, it is expected that Raymond should have known that driving under the influence is likely to cause harm, or to kill another person.

Because Raymond intentionally drank alcohol, knowing he planned on driving home, and any reasonable person should know that drinking and driving could result in harm, he has committed an intentional tort. In addition, Raymond may be criminally charged with felony DUI.

Negligent Torts

The acts leading to claims of harm or injury in negligent torts are not intentional. There are three specific elements that must be satisfied in a claim of negligence:

1. The defendant must have a duty or owe a service to the plaintiff or victim

2. The defendant must have failed that duty, or violated a promise or obligation to the plaintiff

3. The plaintiff must have suffered an actual loss, injury, or damages that were directly caused by the plaintiff's actions, or failure to act

Strict Liability Torts

Strict liability refers to the concept of imposing liability on a defendant, usually a manufacturer, without proving negligent fault, or intent to cause harm. The purpose of strict liability torts is to regulate activities that are acknowledged as being necessary and useful to society, but which pose an abnormally high risk of danger to the public.

Such activities may include transportation and storage of hazardous substances, blasting, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity. The possibility of civil lawsuits under strict liability torts keeps individuals or corporations undertaking such dangerous acts diligent in taking every possible precaution to keep the public safe.

Suing Under Strict Liability Tort

In a strict liability lawsuit, the law assumes that the supplier or manufacturer of the product was aware the defect existed before the product reached the consumer. Because of this, the plaintiff need only prove that harm or damages occurred, and that the defendant is responsible. To successfully bring a civil lawsuit under a strict liability tort, the following elements must be proven:

1. The named defendant is the manufacturer of the defective product

2. The product was defective when the plaintiff purchased it

3. The defect was present when the defendant sold the product

4. The defect caused the plaintiff's injuries or damages

5. The injuries or damages caused by the product's defect were reasonably foreseeable by the defendant

A plaintiff in a strict liability lawsuit may be awarded additional damages if he can prove that the defendant knew about the defect when the product was sold to consumers.
For example:
Amanda buys a new car from her local Zoom Auto dealership. Only three months later, Amanda noticed her brakes felt soft, so she took her car to dealer's repair shop. They told her she just needed new brake pads, replaced them, and sent Amanda on her way. A month later, while Amanda was driving on a busy freeway, her brakes failed, and she crashed into another car. Amanda's car was very badly damaged, and Amanda suffered a broken arm and a concussion.

Amanda discovers, while researching the brake problem she had been having with her car, that this particular model has had brake problems since it was first released for sale to the public. In digging deeper, Amanda discovers that Zoom Auto knew the car's brake system was defective before they sold the cars, but determined it would be too expensive to bring them all back into the factory to change out the brake systems.

In suing Zoom Auto, Amanda must use this information to prove:

1. Zoom Auto manufactured the defective vehicle

2. The car's brake system was defective when she bought the car

3. The car's brake system was defective when Zoom Auto sold the car to Amanda

4. The brake defect caused Amanda's injuries, as well as the severe damage to her car

5. It was reasonably foreseeable that selling a car with a defective brake system would cause injury to consumers

6. Zoom Auto knew about the defective brake system in this particular model car before they sold the vehicles, yet chose to sell them anyway, in blatant disregard of the safety of consumers

Federal Tort Claims Act

Historically, under the legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity," people could not sue the government, unless the government gave them permission. This left people who, for instance, were run over by the mailman, slipped in a puddle caused by a leaky water fountain in the passport office, or were hit by a car driven by an FBI agent who was talking on his phone, out in the cold.

In 1946, Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, giving people the right to sue the U.S. government in federal court for tortious acts committed by individuals acting in their rolls as federal government employees. This permission is limited, however, maintaining certain protections for the government.

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), the U.S. government is liable for the tortious acts of individuals acting on the government's behalf, in the same way a private party would be liable in similar circumstances. The amount of damages that may be awarded in such a lawsuit, however, is limited, with no allowance for punitive damages, or interest accumulated prior to the date of judgment.

The Federal Tort Claims Act also exempts the federal government from certain specified torts, though this protection is not extended to intentional torts committed by law enforcement officials. This means that individuals harmed by the unlawful actions of law enforcement officials may bring a civil lawsuit against the agency for damages.

Filing a Claim under the FTCA

The FTCA specifies that anyone wishing to file a tort claim against the United States must do so, in writing to the appropriate federal agency, within two years of the date the tort occurred. This means that the statute of limitations on filing an administrative claim under the FTCA is two years.

Any individual wishing to file an administrative claim for reimbursement for damages or injury must demonstrate that:

1. His property was damaged, or he was injured, by the actions of an employee of the federal government

2. The federal employee was acting in his official capacity at the time the damage or injury occurred

3. The federal employee acted wrongfully, or negligently

4. The federal employee's wrongful or negligent act caused the plaintiff's damages or injury

In most cases, an individual who desires to file a claim under the FTCA must first file an administrative claim with the federal agency that employs the employee that caused the damages. This requires filling out the required forms, and providing documents or other evidence supporting the claimant's position. Forms and additional information can be obtained from the Department of Justice website.

Once an administrative claim has been filed, the agency has six months to respond to the claimant. If the claimant is not happy with the agency's response or decision, he has six months from the date the response was mailed to him to file a civil lawsuit under the FTCA. In the event the federal agency does not respond to the claimant within the six month time frame, the claimant may go ahead and file a civil lawsuit, but his six-month statute of limitations does not begin to run until the agency actually provides a response or decision.

When filing a claim under the FTCA, the lawsuit must be filed in the U.S. District Court, which is the official name of the federal court, in the district where the tortious act occurred, or where the plaintiff lives.

Tort Reform

The term tort reform has been bandied about as a hot-button issue since the congressional elections in 2010. The average American citizen does not understand what tort reform actually means, and has no idea that it has no bearing on any laws, but is a general acknowledgement that the amount of damages awarded to victorious plaintiffs in tort lawsuits has grown too large.

In past decades, juries have sought to sufficiently reimburse plaintiffs for tortious wrongs committed against them, as well as to punish many defendants for actions the jury considers blatant and egregious. Many proposed tort reform acts have proven to be ill considered, however, as they seek to make it more difficult for people to file civil lawsuits, to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to obtain a jury trial on a civil matter, and to cap the amount of money plaintiffs can be awarded in various types of civil lawsuits.

While some people consider awards made to certain victorious plaintiffs to be exorbitant, the truth is, some of these plaintiffs experience seriously increased costs of living, medical expenses, loss of income, and loss of quality of life, due to the tortious behaviors of others. An award of damages in the millions of dollars range may sound like a large award, but when considering it spread over the plaintiff's lifetime, it is often merely enough to get by.

Tort Law and Tort Reform Under Scrutiny

Tort reform has come under public scrutiny, as many people find publicized awards in civil lawsuits to be shockingly large. One of the most famous tort lawsuits in recent history in the case of a 79-year old woman who sued McDonald's restaurants when she spilled her coffee, and was burned.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

In 1992, 79-year old Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap, sustaining third degree burns to both legs. The severity of the full-thickness burns required skin grafts. This involved stripping skin from other areas of Liebeck's body to graft onto the burned areas which were no longer able to grow skin on their own, leaving her with even more wounds to heal. When McDonald's denied Liebeck's request to pay her medical bills, she filed a civil lawsuit.

During the course of the case, it was discovered McDonald's had received hundreds of other complaints from customers complaining that their coffee had caused severe burns, and that the corporation 's operations manual specified the coffee was to be kept at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. It is known and accepted, by the scientific and medical communities, that liquid at that temperature, if spilled onto a person, causes third degree burns in three to seven seconds.

A jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages to pay for medical bills and other related expenses. Because it was clear the company knew its coffee was kept at a dangerously high temperature, and was therefore likely cause serious injury, the jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which amounted to the company's sales revenue from just two days of coffee sales.

While many proponents of tort reform view this case as a supreme example of a frivolous lawsuit with a shockingly high award, the truth is, McDonald's knew its coffee could cause third degree burns, yet continued to specifically instruct its restaurant employees to keep and serve it at that temperature. Ms. Liebeck's injuries were severe, her painful third degree burns requiring skin grafts. McDonald's was given an opportunity to settle the matter out of court, but they refused to do so.

Ultimately, the judge reduced the amount awarded by the jury to $640,000, and the case was appealed by McDonald's, which finally settled for an undisclosed amount before the appeal concluded. In this case, the current tort system worked property, as it prompted McDonald's to settle the case, quite possibly because of a concern that the award would be boosted back up to the original amount awarded by the jury.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

Civil Lawsuit - A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.

Criminal Offense - An act committed by an individual that is in violation of the law, or that poses a threat to the public.

Damages - A monetary award in compensation for a financial loss, loss of or damage to personal or real property, or an injury.

Defendant - A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.

Entity - An individual, company, association, trust, or other organization that is legally recognized in the eyes of the law. A legal entity is able to enter into contracts, take on obligations, pay debts, be sued, and be held responsible for its actions.

Personal Property - Any item that is moveable and not fixed to real property.

Plaintiff - A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity, such as in a civil lawsuit, or criminal proceedings.

Punitive Damages - Money awarded to the injured party above and beyond their actual damages. Punitive damages, also referred to as "exemplary damages," are ordered for the purpose of punishing the wrongdoer for outrageous misconduct in a civil matter.

Real Property - Land and property attached or fixed directly to the land, including buildings and structures.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tort Law - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tort law refers to the set of laws that provides remedies to individuals who have suffered harm by the unreasonable acts of another. Tort law is based on the idea that people are liable for the consequences of their actions, whether intentional or accidental, if they cause harm to another person or entity.

# data[].attributes.body
This article will go over and explain all four elements of Tort Law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every civil lawsuit except for contractual disputes falls under the category of tort law. Essentially, any civil lawsuit is tort law. The premise behind these laws is to provide compensation to victims of wrongdoings. However, not every tort case is successful.
So how can you make sure your tort case is successful?
For any civil lawsuit to be successful, there need to be four elements of tort law present and proven in court.

In this post, we'll outline the four elements of tort law. After reading this post, you'll know where you stand in any potential tort lawsuit case.

A duty of care must always be present in any tort law claim if it's to be successful. This is basically stating that there is a duty of care on part of the person or the manufacturer of some product that must be upheld. For example, drivers of cars have a duty of care to drive safely and not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.

Going with the example above, let's say you have Brian who can legally drive in the UK and has his own car. Well, Brian has a certain duty of care that he must adhere to at all times as a responsible driver and not engage in behaviours that could endanger others. Examples of this duty of care he has are not getting behind the wheel drunk or affected by drugs.

This is a duty of care Brian has that is enforceable by law so he must adhere to it at all times.

Breaching Duty Of Care

We've established in the previous section that Brian has a certain duty of care and legal responsibility he must adhere to. If he were to breach this care, whether it's intentional or unintentional, he could be liable for a tort.

For example, if he was to drive his car drunk and then run a red light, which resulted in an accident then he would be found guilty of breaching his duty of care. Therefore, he'd be liable for a tort.

Causation Which Results In Suffering

This part is crucial for a tort case because there needs to be the action that has caused suffering to the victim. In the absence of the cause, there is no case for a tort.

A key aspect of causation that a court will explore is whether or not the victim's injuries would have occurred had the offender not committed the specific action that resulted in the injury to the victim.

Let's return to the case of Brian being drunk and running a red light. If while running a red light, he crashed into another car, which resulted in the other driver becoming permanently brain damaged from the crash, then this would be sufficient causation for a tort.

Damage Or Injury?

This is a crucial part of the puzzle because without the damage or injury sustained then there is no basis for a tort lawsuit. Let's roll with the case of Brian above. The other driver he crashed into must have sustained some sort of injury from his negligent actions. If there is an absence of physical, mental, or emotional damage then Brian cannot be liable for a tort.

It's also important that these damages are proven for there to be a legitimate case. To prove mental and emotional damages, you'd need to get expert proof from professionals in this area. To prove physical damages, advice from medical professionals would be required.

What Happens If A Tort Is Proved

If all the four elements of tort law above are present then a tort has been committed. In this circumstance, there is going to be a court case where either damages or an injunction occurs.

There are various damages that can be awarded in this instance such as full compensation where the victim must be fully compensated monetarily for his/her suffering.

However, there are various subcategories of damages that can be awarded like nominal damages, special damages, aggravated damages, and more. Victims will pursue any of the damages most applicable to their specific situation in order to get the compensation they deserve.

Ultimately, it's up to the court to decide what damages will be awarded.

Final Words: Elements Of Tort Law

Torts can be a complex part of the law to understand because there are many specifics to each individual case that must be examined.

However, the most important thing to point out is that unless the four elements of tort law mentioned in this post are present, then there can be no case for a tort.

Build A Solid Legal Foundation In Your Business

If you have a tort case or need help preparing a civil lawsuit then get in touch with us today. If you need any legal advice at a great price then book a free Startup Legal Session.

Comments

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every civil lawsuit except for contractual disputes falls under the category of tort law. Essentially, any civil lawsuit is tort law. The premise behind these laws is to provide compensation to victims of wrongdoings. However, not every tort case is successful. So how can you make sure your tort case is successful?

# data[].attributes.body
In this video it will go over the second element of tort law which is Breach. This video explains the structure and main elements of Breach in Negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GET THE COMPLETE COURSE FOR $10! http://bit.ly/TortLaw This short video explains the structure and main elements of "Breach" in Negligence. The video is part of an extensive course on Tort Law conducted by Shaveen Bandaranayake. Recommended Reading: Tort Law Q&A for LLB Students by Shaveen Bandaranayake - http://amzn.to/2lxeJ5K Q&A Torts by Birju Kotecha - http://amzn.to/2g3PPbn Tort Law by C.

# data[].attributes.body
In this video it will go over the third and fourth element of tort law which is Causation and Damage/Injury. This video explains the structure and main elements of Causation,  "Remoteness" and "Damage" in Negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tort Law - Negligence - Causation, Remoteness & Damage

# data[].attributes.body
In this video it will go over the first element of tort law which is Duty of Care. This video will summarize Duty of Care in relation to negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[].name
university of london international programmes (organization)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GET ALL 4 FIRST YEAR LAW COURSES FOR $35! bit.ly/Learn-The-Law - 5.5 Hours of High Quality Video Lectures - 200+ pages of Case Summaries and Spider Graphs ============================================== Recommended Reading: Tort Law Q&A for LLB Students by Shaveen Bandaranayake - http://amzn.to/2lxeJ5K Q&A Torts by Birju Kotecha - http://amzn.to/2g3PPbn Tort Law by C.