# data[].attributes.body
1.Define or explain your topic of choice – for example, define family law and how dispute resolution relates to family law.

2.Briefly explain the case and outcome you selected.

3.How does the case relate to the topic you selected?

4.What did you learn about the topic that surprised you?

5.What are you most likely to remember from this research?

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding Tort Defense in Legal Context

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding Tort Defense in Legal Context

# data[].attributes.body
This video provides a comprehensive overview of tort defense, explaining key concepts and common strategies employed in legal cases. It's a great starting point for anyone unfamiliar with the topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Detailed Explanation with case laws - General Defenses in Law of Torts

# data[].attributes.body
This video delves into specific cases that have shaped the landscape of tort defense. It offers insights into legal precedents and strategies used in significant lawsuits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defamation Essentials, Defences and case laws - Law of Torts

# data[].attributes.body
Legal experts discuss various tactics employed in tort defense. This video is valuable for gaining deeper insights into the practical aspects of defending against tort claims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Torts: Consent as a Defense to Intentional Tort Liability

# data[].attributes.headline
 "Tort Defense Strategies: A Practical Guide"

# data[].attributes.subject
 "Tort Defense Strategies: A Practical Guide"

# data[].attributes.body
This article outlines practical strategies that lawyers use in tort defense cases. It's a useful resource for understanding the real-world application of legal principles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everyone has the duty to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others. Breach of that duty, leading to an injury, is what is known as negligence.

Negligence arises when an individual or organization fails to take reasonable care in their actions and causes injury or harm to another person. Negligence can include failing to act reasonably, such as failing to take precautions against foreseeable risks, or acting in a manner that is careless or reckless. To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acted in a way that breached their duty of care, and that this breach caused injury or harm. If negligence is established, the defendant may be liable for any damages suffered by the plaintiff.

In order to succeed with a negligence claim in Canada, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant owed them a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. The plaintiff must also show that the damages were foreseeable and that the damages were quantifiable. Additionally, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the damages were a direct result of a defendant's negligence.

Duty of Care

Duty of care is an obligation imposed on individuals and organizations to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to others. It is based on the principle that we have a legal duty to act in a reasonable manner towards others, taking into account the foreseeable risks of our actions. The standard of care required is assessed objectively - what a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have done. Duty of care is a cornerstone of tort law and serves to ensure that those who cause harm to another person are held accountable.

Generally, people are free to act any way they want, as long as they do not harm others. This means strangers are generally not responsible for caring for each other unless a special relationship exists. For example, parents owe their children a duty of care and doctors owe their patients a duty of care because of their underlying relationship.

In a business context, businesses owe a duty of care to their customers and managers owe a duty of care to their employees. It is important to understand that businesses and individuals owe a general duty to the community as a whole and are required to exercise a reasonable degree of care to protect the public from foreseeable risks that the owner knew or should have known about.

Standard of Care

The standard of care refers to the degree of care which a reasonable person would use in similar circumstances. This means that a person can be held liable for damages caused by a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to another person. The standard of care may vary depending on the particular circumstances and can be higher or lower than the usual standard. The court will consider all relevant factors, such as the nature of the activity, the level of risk involved, the resources available and any special expertise or knowledge of the person.

Reasonable Person - A reasonable person is not expected to be perfect. It is an objective standard in which the expectation is to exercise reasonable care based on what he or she knows about the situation, how much experience he or she has with the situation, and how he or she perceives the situation. Professionals (such as doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers and others) are typically held to a higher standard due to possessing greater expertise and experience within their area of practice compared to an average person.

Reasonable Care - The reasonable care standard is the legal duty of care that a person must exercise in order to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person. This standard of care requires the person to take reasonable steps to protect the safety and welfare of others. This includes taking steps that are within the realm of what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

Reasonable Foreseeability - Negligence case decisions are influenced by whether or not a defendant could have predicted that an action or inaction could have resulted in the tort. Responsibility is often based on whether the harm caused by an action or inaction was reasonably foreseeable - that harm or injury could be reasonably anticipated from the actions of a person or entity.

Breach of Duty - Once a duty of care and the standard of care have been established, plaintiffs have to prove that the defendant breached that duty. Breach of duty occurs when a person's conduct falls below the expected standard of care owed to another person. This occurs when a person has a duty of care to another person and does not meet the requirements of that duty. When a person breaches their duty of care, they can be held liable for any losses suffered by the other person as a result. A breach is demonstrated by showing the defendant failed to act reasonably. In practical terms, the presence of injury or harm is usually enough to satisfy the "breach of duty" requirement.

Causation - In tort law, a plaintiff must be able to prove that a defendant's actions directly caused or contributed to the injury or damages suffered by the plaintiff. In order to prove causation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions or omissions were the direct cause of the harm. The legal test for causation is known as the 'but-for' test, which states that the plaintiff must show that 'but for' the defendant's actions, the harm or injury would not have occurred. In addition, the plaintiff must prove that the harm was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.

Damages - The final element in negligence is legally recognizable injuries, or damages. If someone walks on a discarded banana peel and does not slip, then no tort occurs because there was no injury.

There are two types of damages awarded in tort law. Compensatory damages are damages that are awarded to a plaintiff to compensate them for a loss or injury caused by the defendant's wrongful act or negligence. This type of damages is designed to put the plaintiff back in the position they were in prior to the incident or to make them whole. These damages are based on the plaintiff's actual losses, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

The second type of damages is punitive damages, which are intended to deter the defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The idea behind punitive damages is that compensatory damages may be inadequate to deter future bad conduct, so additional damages are necessary to ensure the defendant corrects its ways. Punitive damages are awarded to the plaintiff in addition to other damages for losses such as pain and suffering and economic losses. They are awarded only in exceptional cases where the defendant's conduct has been particularly malicious or outrageous. There are constitutional limits to the award of punitive damages.

Defenses

There are a number of defenses which a defendant can use in a negligence claim. Specifically, a defendant being sued for negligence has two main defenses:

assumption of risk by the plaintiff;

and (2) comparative negligence.

Assumption of Risk - The first defense is assumption of risk. If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of participating in a dangerous activity, then the defendant is not liable for injuries incurred. However, a plaintiff can only assume known risks. A skier assumes the known risks of downhill skiing, including falling, avalanches, and skiing in poor conditions. However, a skier who is injured from a defective chair lift does not assume the risk of injury as a result of a manufacturing defect or poor maintenance practices.

A related doctrine, the open and obvious doctrine, is used to defend against lawsuits by persons injured while on someone else's property. The open and obvious defence states that a defendant is not liable for harm caused to the plaintiff, if the defect or danger was so obvious that it should have been noticed and avoided by the plaintiff. This defence is based on the idea that a plaintiff should not be able to recover damages for injuries sustained from something that was obvious and should have been avoided.

Contributory Negligence - The second defense to negligence is when the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to his or her injuries. Many jurisdictions follow the contributory negligence rule. Under this rule, the judge or jury will determine the percentage of fault of all the parties for the plaintiff's injuries. If the jury finds the plaintiff responsible for some of his or her own injuries, then any contributory damages are reduced by that percentage. For example, if a customer is 40 percent at fault for his injuries, then the compensatory damage award will be reduced by 40 percent. The reasoning for this rule is to hold people and businesses accountable for their own negligence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unintentional Torts – Business Law and Ethics Canadian Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Exploring common misconceptions, this article sheds light on areas where people might have a misunderstanding about tort defense. It's essential for a well.

# data[].attributes.headline
Common Misconceptions About Tort Defense

# data[].attributes.subject
Common Misconceptions About Tort Defense

# data[].attributes.body
This article explores the relationship between insurance and tort defense, providing insights into how insurance plays a crucial role in managing and mitigating legal risks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are different legal rules that can result in a tortfeasor being held liable for committing a tort. These include negligence; intentional torts; vicarious liability; and strict liability.

Tort of Negligence

Negligence is extremely common. The tort of negligence occurs when a tortfeasor harms someone by failing to fulfill a legal duty to act with the required level of care.

In negligence claims, a victim does not have to show a tortfeasor harmed them intentionally. Instead, they must show:

The tortfeasor had a duty to them. This could be the duty of a doctor to provide professional care for a patient or the duty of a store to offer customers a safe environment or the duty of a driver to exercise reasonably safe behavior on the roads.

The tortfeasor failed to live up to the duty and was considered negligent. In some cases, a reasonable person standard is used, and a tortfeasor can be held liable for failing to exercise the level of care a hypothetical reasonable person would have. In other circumstances, a different standard is used. For example, in medical malpractice claims, a doctor's acts or omissions are compared with what a similarly-trained medical professional would have done under the circumstances.

The plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the tortfeasor's breached duty. The damage must have been a direct and foreseeable consequence of the negligent behavior.

The plaintiff suffered compensable harm. This means showing actual losses occurred as a result of the negligence of the tortfeasor.

Negligence is the grounds for tort liability in many different kinds of cases, including many car accident claims, slip-and-falls, medical malpractice claims and other personal injury cases.

Intentional Torts

Sometimes, a tortfeasor faces liability for causing damages as a result of intentional wrongdoing. For example, if a tortfeasor punched or hit someone on purpose and hurt them with the blow, the victim could pursue a civil case under tort laws. This would proceed separately from any criminal trial for offenses like assault and battery.

In these situations, a plaintiff can show a tortfeasor should be held liable by demonstrating that intentional wrongdoing led to harm that the victim can be compensated for.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is another legal rule that makes a defendant liable to a victim. This is different from negligence or intentional torts because the defendant in a vicarious liability case can be held liable for damages a victim experienced even if the defendant did not directly or personally do anything negligent or wrongful.

Vicarious liability applies when a defendant is liable for the actions committed by their agent. One common example is when an employer is held responsible for compensating victims whom their employees hurt while performing work duties.

For a plaintiff to win a vicarious liability case, the plaintiff must prove the defendant should be held accountable for the actions of an agent or employee acting on their behalf.

Strict Liability

Strict liability is a special type of tort liability rule as well. It makes a defendant liable for all losses resulting from certain causes, even if the defendant did not act wrongfully or negligently.

Strict liability applies when a defendant is always responsible for a certain type of loss. Examples include states that apply strict liability rules to dog owners. In strict liability dog bite states, if a person's dog bites someone, regardless of whether the owner was negligent or there was reason to believe the dog would bite, the dog's owner is responsible for resulting damages.

Strict liability can also apply in products liability cases. If a product is used as intended and causes harm, the manufacturer and others along the supply chain can be held strictly liable for any resulting losses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tort Liability: Legal Definition & Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A tort is a civil wrong. This may sound complicated, but basically a tort happens when a person or company, called a tortfeasor, violates someone's legal rights (other than by breaching a contract). Under tort law, the tortfeasor can be held liable for that violation.

# data[].attributes.body
This infographic visually represents key concepts in tort defense, serving as a quick reference for those wanting to grasp the fundamentals at a glance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Team in Action During Tort Defense

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Team in Action During Tort Defense

# data[].attributes.body
A powerful image capturing the intensity and collaboration involved in a legal team's efforts during a tort defense case

# data[].attributes.headline
Negligence vs. Intentional Tort Illustrated

# data[].attributes.subject
Negligence vs. Intentional Tort Illustrated

# data[].attributes.body
This illustration visually distinguishes between negligence and intentional torts, helping to clarify these fundamental concepts in tort law.