Tort
Tort is known as a civil wrong. Tort liability is often the result of negligence by a person who then is sued, or taken to court, for damages. The person who sues is known as the plaintiff, the person being sued is known as the defendant. The plaintiff must inititate legal action on his own and must prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant is liable to pay damages. If the liability can not be absolutely determined, the defendant has the opportunity to make a counter claim. In this case, the judge must determine the amount each party is liable for.
In addition to negligence, unintentional tort liability can involve product liability, occupier's liability, social host liability, vicarious liability, and automobile negligence.
Intentional tort liability can be similar to crime but usually lacks the ability on the part of the plaintiff to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples of intentional tort with resulting damage can include interference with the person: assault, battery, false imprisonment, or defamation. They can also involve property such as trespass to land, chattels or nuisance.
TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS
Duty of Care
Standard of Care
Breach of the duty
Damages:
o Causation
o Remoteness
Duty of Care
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your
neighbour.”
Who, in law, is your neighbour?
“The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and
directly affected by my act that that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing
my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”.
Standard of Care
The reasonable person test.
Whether a hypothetical reasonable onlooker would have
foreseen the possibility of harm or loss to certain individuals
involved in the particular event
Professionals have a higher standard of care applied e.g.
orthopaedic surgeon – the standard of care that must be
exercised is that of a reasonably competent orthopaedic
surgeon.
Breach
1. Foreseeability
Whether there has been a breach requires an analysis of two
things:
Whether the danger or risk was foreseeable; and
How a reasonable man would have responded to the
foreseeable risk
A court may take several things into account:
the probability of the risk of injury
gravity of the harm
burden of eliminating the risk; and
social value of the defendant’s conduct.
Damage
There has to be some actual damage for the claim to succeed.
There needs to be a connection between the negligent act and
the damage caused
Causation - the “but for” test
The party being sued should not be held liable for all the
consequences of the damage
Remoteness
Defences
Contributory Negligence
E.g. not wearing a seatbelt in a car crash reduced by 25%
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Exemption Clauses
Source: http://www.nigerianlawguru.com/articles/torts/NEGLIGENCE%20OVERHEADS.pdf
In addition to negligence, unintentional tort liability can involve product liability, occupier's liability, social host liability, vicarious liability, and automobile negligence.
Intentional tort liability can be similar to crime but usually lacks the ability on the part of the plaintiff to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples of intentional tort with resulting damage can include interference with the person: assault, battery, false imprisonment, or defamation. They can also involve property such as trespass to land, chattels or nuisance.
TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS
Duty of Care
Standard of Care
Breach of the duty
Damages:
o Causation
o Remoteness
Duty of Care
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your
neighbour.”
Who, in law, is your neighbour?
“The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and
directly affected by my act that that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing
my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”.
Standard of Care
The reasonable person test.
Whether a hypothetical reasonable onlooker would have
foreseen the possibility of harm or loss to certain individuals
involved in the particular event
Professionals have a higher standard of care applied e.g.
orthopaedic surgeon – the standard of care that must be
exercised is that of a reasonably competent orthopaedic
surgeon.
Breach
1. Foreseeability
Whether there has been a breach requires an analysis of two
things:
Whether the danger or risk was foreseeable; and
How a reasonable man would have responded to the
foreseeable risk
A court may take several things into account:
the probability of the risk of injury
gravity of the harm
burden of eliminating the risk; and
social value of the defendant’s conduct.
Damage
There has to be some actual damage for the claim to succeed.
There needs to be a connection between the negligent act and
the damage caused
Causation - the “but for” test
The party being sued should not be held liable for all the
consequences of the damage
Remoteness
Defences
Contributory Negligence
E.g. not wearing a seatbelt in a car crash reduced by 25%
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Exemption Clauses
Source: http://www.nigerianlawguru.com/articles/torts/NEGLIGENCE%20OVERHEADS.pdf
flowchart.pdf | |
File Size: | 13 kb |
File Type: |
Important Tort links
1. http://www.lesaonline.org/samples/07_39_06_p1.pdf
2. http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/law30/civil/lesson1/1c.html
3. http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/defamation/introduction.html
4. http://www.suite101.com/content/negligence-and-canadian-tort-law-a127348
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ynTbY944Q&feature=related
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGFqwWuU9c&feature=related
2. http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/law30/civil/lesson1/1c.html
3. http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/defamation/introduction.html
4. http://www.suite101.com/content/negligence-and-canadian-tort-law-a127348
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ynTbY944Q&feature=related
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGFqwWuU9c&feature=related