A tort in common law jurisdiction is a civil wrong
that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal
liability for the person who commits A tortious act.
It can include the intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of
privacy, and many other things. Tort law, A suit where the
purpose of a legal action is to attain a private civil remedy
such as damages, may be compared to criminal law, which deals
with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state.
Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which also
provides a civil remedy after breach of duty.
But whereas the contractual obligation is 1 chosen by the
parties, the obligation in both tort and crime is imposed by the
state in both contract and tort. Successful claimants must show
that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a
direct result of the breach of duty terminology.
The person who commits the act is called a tort visa.
Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action in
civil torts is not necessarily the result of criminal action.
The harm in civil torts may be due to negligence, which does
not amount to criminal negligence.
The victim of the harm can recover their losses damages in
a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the
plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the
injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action
was the legally recognizable cause of the harm.
The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict.
Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may
include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as
violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights.
Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents,
false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright
infringement, and environmental pollution.
Toxic torts. Compared to criminal cases, tort
lawsuits have a lower burden of proof, namely preponderance of
evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sometimes a claimant may prevail in a tort case even if the
defendant who allegedly caused harm were acquitted in an
earlier criminal trial. For example, OJ Simpson was
acquitted in Criminal Court of murder but later found libel for
the tort of wrongful death. Both tort law and criminal law
may impose liability where there is intentional action, reckless
behavior, carelessness, product liability without negligence in
the US and EU, innocence or blameless inadvertence, provided
there is strict liability the United States influence.
The United States Tort Law was influenced by English Law and
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, with several
state constitutions specifically providing for redress for torts
in addition to reception statutes which adopted English
law. However, tort law was viewed as
relatively undeveloped by the mid 19th century.
The First American Treatise on torts was published in the
1860s, but the subject became particularly established when
Oliver Wendell Holmes junior wrote on the subject in the
1880s. Holmes writings have been
described as the first serious attempt in the common law world
to give torts both a coherent structure and a distinctive
substantive domain. Although Holmes Summary of the
History of Torts has been critically reviewed, the 1928 US
case of Paulsgrove versus Long Island Railroad Company heavily
influenced the British judges. In the 1932 House of Lords case
of Donahue V Stevenson Modern development, the law of torts
for various jurisdictions has developed independently.
In the case of the United States, a survey of trial
lawyers pointed to several modern developments, including
strict liability for products based on Greenman versus Yuba
Power products, the limitation of various immunities, e.g.,
sovereign immunity, charitable immunity, comparative
negligence, broader rules for admitting evidence, increased
damages for emotional distress and toxic torts, and class
action lawsuits. However, there has also been a
reaction in terms of tort reform, which in some cases have
been struck down as violating state constitutions and federal
preemption of state laws. Modern torts are heavily
affected by insurance and insurance law as most cases are
settled through claims adjustment rather than by trial,
and are defended by insurance lawyers, with the insurance
policy a deep pocket limit setting a ceiling on the
possible payment conflict of laws.
In certain instances, different jurisdictions, law may apply to
a tort, in which case rules have developed for which law to
apply. This occurs particularly in the
United States, where each of the 50 states may have different
state laws, but also may occur in other countries with a
federal system of states or internationally categories.
Torts may be categorized in several ways, with a
particularly common division between negligent and
intentional torts. Quasi torts may be used to refer
to torts which are similar to, but somewhat different from
typical torts, particularly in the United States.
Collateral tort is used to refer to torts in labor law, such as
intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrage, or
wrongful dismissal. These evolving causes of action
are debated and overlap with contract law or other legal
areas to some degree. The most common action in tort
is negligence. The tort of negligence provides
A cause of action leading to damages or to relief in each
case designed to protect legal rights, including those of
personal safety, property, and in some cases, intangible
economic interests or noneconomic interests, such as
the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In the United States, negligence actions include claims coming
primarily from car accidents and personal injury accidents of
many kinds, including clinical negligence, workers negligence,
and so forth. Product liability cases, such as
those involving warranties, may also be considered.
Negligence actions or, particularly in the United
States, may apply regardless of negligence or intention through
strict liability. Intentional torts include, among
others, certain torts arising from the occupational use of
land. The tort of nuisance, for
example, involves strict liability for a neighbor who
interferes with another's enjoyment of his real property.
Trespass allows owners to sue for entrances by a person or his
structure, such as an overhanging building on their
land. Several intentional torts do not
involve land. Examples include false
imprisonment, the tort of unlawfully arresting or
detaining someone, and defamation in some jurisdiction,
split into libel and slander where false information is
broadcast and damages the plaintiff's reputation.
Other intentional torts include battery assault, trespass to
chattels, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
misrepresentation, and a liolation of affections.
In some cases, the development of tort law has spurred
lawmakers to create alternative solutions to disputes.
For example, in some areas, workers compensation laws rose
as a legislative response to court rulings restricting the
extent to which employees could sue their employers in
respective injuries sustained during employment.
In other cases, legal commentary has led to the development of
new causes of action outside the traditional common law torts.
These are loosely grouped into quasi torts or liability torts.
Negligence. Negligence is a tort which
arises from the breach of the duty of care owed by one person
to another from the perspective of a reasonable person.
Although credited is appearing in the United States in Brown
versus Kendall, the later Scottish case of Donahue V
Stevenson 1932 A/C 562 followed in England, brought England into
line with the United States and established the tort of
negligence as opposed to negligence as a component in
specific actions in Donahue. Mrs. Donahue drank from an
opaque bottle containing A decompassed snail and claimed
that it had made her ill. She could not zoom.
Mr. Stevenson for damages for breach of contract and instead
sued for negligence. The majority determined that the
definition of negligence can be divided into 4 component parts
that the plaintiff must prove to establish negligence.
The elements in determining the liability for negligence are the
plaintiff was out of duty of care through a special
relationship, e.g., doctor, patient or some other principle.
There was a dereliction or breach of that duty.
The tort visa directly caused the injury, but for the
defendant's actions, the plaintiff would not have
suffered an injury. The plaintiff suffered damage as
a result of that breach. The damage was not too remote.
There was proximate cause to show the breach caused the
damage. In certain cases, negligence can
be assumed under the doctrine of resips.
A laquitor. Latin for the thing itself,
speaks particularly in the United States.
A related concept is negligence per sea.
For example, in the business realm, the auditor has a duty of
care to the company they are auditing that the documents
created are a true and reliable representation of the company's
financial position. However, as per ascend of
Finance Corporation Limited versus Pete Marwick
Hungerford's, such auditors do not provide a duty of care to
third parties who rely on their reports.
An exception is where the auditor provides the third party
with a privity letter explicitly stating the third party can rely
on the report for a specific purpose.
In such cases, the privity letter establishes a duty of
care. The case Chapman V Hearse added
to the precedent of negligence. Where in previous cases
reasonable for the ability was applied narrowly to include all
predictable actions, Chapman versus hearse extended this to
include all damages of the same nature which could be reasonably
foreseen. Proximate cause means that you
must be able to show that the harm was caused by the tort you
are suing for. The defense may argue that there
was a prior cause or a superseding intervening cause.
A common situation where a prior cause becomes an issue is the
personal injury car accident where the person reinjures an
old injury. For example, someone who has a
bad back is injured in the back in a car accident.
Years later he is still in pain. He must prove the pain is caused
by the car accident and not the natural progression of the
previous problem with the back. A superseding intervening cause
happened shortly after the injury.
For example, if after the accident, the Doctor Who works
on you commits malpractice and injuries, you further, the
defense can argue that it was not the accident but the
incompetent Doctor Who caused your injury.
Intentional torts. The intentional torts are any
intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause
harm to an individual and that do so.
Intentional torts have several subcategories.
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false
imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic
tort. Property torts involve any
intentional interference with the property rights of the
claimant plaintiff. Those commonly recognized
include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, personal
property, and conversion. An intentional tort requires an
overt act, some form of intent, and causation.
In most cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the
defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up
injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent
requirement. Causation can be satisfied as
long as the defendant was a substantial factor in causing
the harm. Statutory torts A statutory tort
is like any other in that it imposes duties on private or
public parties. However, they are created by the
legislature, not the courts. For example, the European
Union's Product Liability Directive imposes strict
liability for defective products that harm people.
Such strict liability is not uncommon, although not
necessarily statutory. As another example, in England,
common law liability of a landowner to guests or
trespassers was replaced by the Occupiers Liability Act, 1957.
As similar situation occurred in the US state of California in
which a judicial common law rule established in Roland versus
Christian was amended through a 1985 statute.
Statutory torts also spread across workplace health and
safety laws, and health and safety and food.
In some cases, federal or state statutes may preempt toward
actions, which is particularly discussed in terms of the USFDA
preemption. Although actions in the United
States for medical devices are preempted due to regional versus
Medtronic, incorporated in 2008, actions for medical drugs are
not due to Wyatt versus Levine 2009 nuisance.
Nuisances traditionally used to describe an activity which is
harmful or annoying to others, such as indecent conduct or a
rubbish heap. Nuisances either affect private
individuals, private nuisance or the general public public
nuisance. The claimant can sue for most
acts that interfere with their use and enjoyment of their land.
In English law, whether activity was an illegal nuisance depended
upon the area and whether the activity was for the benefit of
the Commonwealth, with richer areas subject to a greater
expectation of cleanliness and quiet.
The case Jones versus Powell 1629 provides an early example
in which a person's professional papers were damaged by the
vapors of a neighboring brewery. Although the outcome of this
case is unclear, White Lock of the Court of the King's Bench is
recorded as saying that since the water supply in area was
already contaminated, the nuisance was not actionable as
it is better that they should be spoiled than that the
Commonwealth stand in need of good liquor in English law.
A related category of tort liability was created in the
case of Rylands versus Fletcher 1868.
Strict liability was established for a dangerous escape of some
hazard, including water, fire or animals, as long as the cause
was not remote. In Cambridge Water Company
limited the Eastern Counties Leather PLC1994 chemicals from a
factory seat through a floor into the water table,
contaminating E Anglia's water reservoirs.
The Rylands rule remains in use in England and Wales.
In Australian law, it has been merged into negligence,
defamation. Defamation is tarnishing the
reputation of someone. It has two varieties, slander
and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and
libel is printed or broadcast defamation.
The two otherwise share the same features, making a factual
assertion for which evidence does not exist.
Defamation does not affect or hinder the voicing of opinions,
but does occupy the same fields as rights to free speech in the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States or Article 10 of the European Convention of Human
Rights. Related to defamation in the US
are the actions for misappropriation of publicity,
invasion of privacy and disclosure, Abusive process, and
malicious prosecution are often classified as dignitary torts
as, well business torts, main articles, Economic Tort and
Misrepresentation. Business torts i.e.
Economic torts typically involve commercial transactions and
include torches, interference with trade or contract fraud,
injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation.
Negligent misrepresentation torts are distinct from
contractual cases involving misrepresentation in that there
is no privity of contract. These torts are likely to
involve Bureau Economic loss, which has been less commonly
recoverable in tort. One criterion for determining
whether economic loss is recoverable is the
foreseeability doctrine. The economic loss rule is highly
confusing and inconsistently applied, and began in 1965 from
a California case involving strict liability for product
defects. In 1986, the US Supreme Court
adopted the doctrine in East River S S Corporation versus
Transamerica Dilable, Incorporated.
In 2010, the Supreme Court of the US State of Washington
replaced the economic loss doctrine with an independent
duty doctrine. Economic antitrust torts have
been somewhat submerged by modern competition law, However.
In the United States, private parties are permitted in certain
circumstances to sue for anticompetitive practices,
including under federal or state statutes or on the basis of
common law torches, interference which may be based upon the
Restatement. Second of Tort. 766 Federal laws
include the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, followed by the
Clayton Antitrust Act, which restrict cartels and, through
Federal Trade Commission, regulate mergers and
acquisitions. In the European Union, Articles
101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union apply, but allowing private actions to enforce
antitrust laws is under discussion.
Negligent misrepresentation is tort, where no contractual
privity exists, was disallowed in England by Dairy VP1889.
However, this position was overturned in Headley Byrne V
Heller in 1964, so that such actions were allowed if a
special relationship existed between the plaintiff and
defendant. United States courts and
scholars paid lip service to dairy.
However, scholars such as William Prosser argued that it
was misinterpreted by English courts.
The case of Ultramares Corporation versus touché 1932
limited the liability of an auditor to known identified
beneficiaries of the audit, and this rule was widely applied in
the United States until the 1960s.
The Restatement Second of torts expanded liability to
foreseeable users rather than specifically identified foreseen
users of the information, dramatically expanding liability
and defecting professionals such as accountants, architects,
attorneys, and surveyors. As of 1989, most US
jurisdictions follow either the ultra mayor's approach or the
restatement approach. The tort of deceit for
inducement into a contract is a tort in English law, but in
practice has been replaced by actions under Misrepresentation
Act, 1967. In the United States, similar
torts existed but have become superseded to some degree by
contract law and the pure economic laws rule.
Historically and to some degree today, fraudulent but not
negligent misrepresentation involving damages for economic
loss may be awarded under the benefit of the bargain rule,
damages identical to expectation damages in contracts which
awards the plaintiff the difference between the value
represented in the actual value, beginning with styles versus
white 1846. In Massachusetts, this rule
spread across the country as a majority rule, with the out of
pocket damages rule as a minority rule.
Although the damages under the benefit of the bargain are
described as compensatory, the plaintiff is left better often
before the transaction. Since the economic loss rule
would eliminate these benefits if applied strictly, there is an
exception to allow the misrepresentation tort if not
related to a contract liability, defenses and remedies.
Indirect liability may arise due to some involvement, notably
through joint and several liability doctrines, as well as
forms of secondary liability. Liability may arise through
enterprise liability. Other concepts include market
share liability, vicarious liability.
In certain cases, a person might be liable for their employer
child under the law of agency through the doctrine of
responded superior. For example, if a shop employee
spilled cleaning liquid on the supermarket floor and a victim
fell and suffered injuries, the plaintiff might be able to sue
either the employee or the employer.
There is considerable academic debate about whether vicarious
liability is justified on no better basis than the search for
a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory
of efficient risk allocation defenses.
A successful defense absolves the defendant from full or
partial liability for damages. Apart from proof that there was
no breach of duty, there are three principal defenses to
tortious liability. Typically, a victim cannot hold
another libel if the victim has implicitly or explicitly
consented to engage in a risky activity.
This is frequently summarized by the Maxim Valenti nonfit Injuria
Latin. To a willing person, no injury
is done or no injury is done to a person who consents.
In many cases, those engaging in risky activities will be asked
to sign a waiver, releasing another party from liability.
For example, spectators to certain sports are assumed to
accept a risk of injury, such as a hockey pucker, baseball
striking a member of the audience.
Warnings by the defendant may also provide a defense,
depending upon the jurisdiction in circumstances.
This issue arises, for example, in the duty of care that
landowners have for guests or trespasses known as occupiers
liability. If the victim has contributed to
causing their own harm through negligent or irresponsible
actions, the damages may be reduced or eliminated entirely.
The English case Butterfield versus Forrester 1809
established this defense. In England, this contributory
negligence became a partial defense.
But in the United States, any fault by the victim completely
eliminated any damages. This meant that if the plaintiff
was 1% at fault, the victim would lose the entire lawsuit.
This was viewed as unnecessarily harsh and therefore amended to a
comparative negligence system in many states.
As of 2007, contributory negligence exists in only a few
states such as North Carolina and Maryland.
In comparative negligence, the victims damages are reduced
according to the degree of fault.
Comparative negligence has been criticized as allowing A
plaintiff who is recklessly 95% negligent to recover 5% of the
damages from the defendant. Economists have further
criticized comparative negligence is not encouraging
precaution under the calculus of negligence.
In response, many states now have a 50% rule where the
plaintiff recovers nothing if the plaintiff is more than 50%
responsible. If the claimant is involved in
wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred,
this may extinguish or reduce the defendants liability.
The legal maxim X Turby Casa Nonorder Act show Latin for no
right of action arises from a despicable cause.
Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner
and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to
escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the
property owner, even though that injury would not have been
sustained. But for the property owners
intervention, further information, sovereign Immunity,
Good Samaritan Law, and charitable immunity.
Historically, immunity has been granted to governments under
sovereign immunity and to charitable organizations under
charitable immunity, although these have eroded in the United
States. Various laws limit liability
when giving aid to a person in need.
Liability can arise from a failure to help due to the duty
to rescue remedies. The main remedy against torcious
losses, compensation, and damages, their money and a
limited range of cases. Tort law will tolerate selfhelp,
such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser.
This is a defense against the TORTO battery.
Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where
harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an
injunction, such as in the English case Miller versus
Jackson 1977. This means a command for
something other than money by the court, such as restraining
the continuance or threat of harm.
Usually injunctions will not impose positive obligations on
tort visas, but some Australian jurisdictions can make an order
for specific performance to ensure that the defendant
carries out their legal obligations, especially in
relation to nuisance matters. Relationship to contract law.
Tort is sometimes viewed as the causes of action, which are not
defined in other areas, such as contractor fiduciary law.
However, toward and contract law are similar in that both involve
A breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have
blurred and it may not be clear whether an action sounds in tort
or contract if both apply and different standards apply for
each, such as a statute of limitations.
Courts will determine which is the gravamen.
The most applicable circumstances, such as those
involving professional negligence, may involve both
torts and contracts. The choice may affect time
limits or damages, particularly given that damages are typically
relatively limited in contract cases, while in tort cases
noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering may be awarded.
Punitive damages are relatively uncommon in contractual cases
versus tort cases. However, compensation for
defective but not unsafe products is typically available
only through contractual actions through the law of warranty.
In the United Kingdom, plaintiffs and professional
negligence cases has some degree of choice in which law, while in
commercial transactions, contract law applies.
In unusual cases, intangible losses have been awarded in
contract law cases. The English case Hadley versus
Baxendale 1854, which was adopted in the United States,
split contract and tort damages by foreseeability of the damages
when the contract was made in the United States, the pure
economic loss rule was adopted to further prevent negligence
lawsuits in breach of contract cases.
This economic loss rule was adopted by the Supreme Court of
the United States. East River Steamship Corporation
V Transamerica de Laval incorporated 1986 and expanded
across the country in a nonuniform manner, leading to
confusion. Among other examples, the tort
of insurance, bad faith arises out of a contractual
relationship, and collateral torts, such as wrongful
dismissal, involving possible overlap with labor law
contracts, overlap with criminal law.
There is some overlap between criminal law and tort.
For example, in English law and assault is both a crime and a
tort, a form of trespass to the person.
A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to obtain a remedy
that serves their own purposes, for example by the payment of
damages to a person injured in a car accident or the obtaining of
injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with their
business. Criminal actions, on the other
hand, are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a person,
although often criminal courts do have power to grant such
remedies, but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf.
This explains why incarceration is usually available as a
penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for torts, an early
common law. The distinction between crime
and tort was not distinct. The more severe penalties
available in criminal law also means that it requires a higher
burden of proof to be discharged than the related tort.
For example, in the OJ Simpson murder trial, the jury was not
convinced beyond reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson had
committed the crime of murder. But in a later civil trial, the
jury in that case decided that there was sufficient evidence to
meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence
required to prove the tort of wrongful death.
Many jurisdictions, especially the US, retain punitive elements
and tort damages, for example in antitrust and consumer related
torts, making tort blurred line with criminal acts.
Also, there are situations where, particularly if the
defendant ignores the orders of the court, a plaintiff can
obtain A punitive remedy against the defendant, including
imprisonment. Some torts may have a public
element, for example public nuisance, and sometimes actions
in tort will be brought by a public body.
Also, while criminal law is primarily punitive, many
jurisdictions have developed forms of monetary compensation
or restitution, which criminal courts can directly order the
defendant to pay to the victim. The content used in the podcast
is licensed by the Wikimedia Foundation, Incorporated under a
Creative Commons Attribution Share a Like license.
The text has been modified for audio.
The content of these podcasts is for informational purposes only
and do not constitute professional advice.
These podcasts are not associated with the Wikimedia
Foundation in any context. The content of this podcast was
last edited on March 29th, 2020. Hi, this is Annie from of
Wassamone. You're listening to a Creative
Commons Licensed podcast.