Australian Tort Law

Tort laws have been derived from a combination of legislative enactments and common-law principles. These tort actions are dissimilar from breach of contract, in that tort actions are not reliant upon an agreement between the parties to support a lawsuit. Correspondingly, unlike criminal prosecutions, which are presented by the government, tort actions can be brought by private parties. Equitable remedies for tortious acts include money damages and injunctions, which by court orders that forbid or refrain a particular party to conduct or act a certain way. Tortfeasors, the person who commits a tort or civil wrong, are subject to neither fine nor incarceration in civil court.

An action done to an individual that resulted to an injuries or damages, therefore the injured party can file legal actions for it ("Tort Law - Tort | Laws.Com"). In order to recover from the injuries and damages the complainant can actually demand a compensation in a monetary from from the party who caused the injuries. There are two types of tort it can either be constitutional or personal. Constitutional tort is when the person's rights will be forbidden to him/her that is actually provided or from the Constitution while the Personal tort, is tainting a person's reputation intentionally which law will never tolerate ("Tort Law - Tort | Laws.Com").

Tort law enables citizens to seek reimbursement for loss and or suffering from conduct that would be deemed dangerous or unreasonable of others (3). Tort law is non criminal and is dealt with in our civil judicial system. The categories of Tort Law include intentional tort, negligence and strict liability.

In Canada, when someone feels they have been wronged or injured by another, they can seek compensation through the courts. This area of law is known as tort law which examines conduct and consequences (Lin, 2010, p. 4). Tort law does not rely on promises or contracts. It is an area of law that examines the obligations and duties one party has to another. In relation to business and professionals, tort law aims to change the behavior of producers to prevent future harm or loss (Lin, 2010, p. 9).

The scenarios below provide several examples of torts to include negligence, unintentional torts, intentional torts, assault, battery, etc. Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party (Cornell, 2010).

It is a hot summer day, and Bob is traveling home after a long day at work. The air-conditioning in the car is broken, and he is musing about his argument with his boss earlier. Distracted by the heat of the day, he darts through a red light, and sees another driver racing toward his right. He attempts to slam on his brakes, but is unable to avoid the impending collision. Tragic scenes like these occur around the world every day. A person’s life could be ended or forever changed by another’s unintentional negligence. If Bob was taken to civil court for his actions, he could be forced to cover the cost of any harms inflicted on others during the incident. Legal experts use the word tort to describe harms like these. The laws that govern how torts are handled in the court systems of America have been under severe attack in recent years. Many groups have successfully lobbied several state legislatures into making reforms to their tort laws. Unfortunately, even though many of these reforms are established with the best of intentions, legislators at times make spontaneous, illogical decisions as reactions to current problems. Often these extemporaneous decisions lead to substantive problems. Therefore, it should be stated that current tort reform is insufficient for the needs of society.

Tort, Not Torte: A tort is a civil wrong, and if someone commits one that injures you, you can sue for money damages. Intentional torts include fraud or invasion of privacy, while negligent torts include medical malpractice and car accidents resulting in personal injury or wrongful death. You need an accident injury attorney for a tort. On the other hand, you need a fork for a torte, which is a delicious chocolate-iced cake.

*What is a tort? A civil wrong other than a breach of contract for which the law provides a remedy.

(Rixon v Star City). Exigencies of everyday are not classified as “battery” . (rixon v star city).

Scott’s intention to sue Matt for the off shore accident falls under the Australian Law of Torts. Derived from an old French vocabulary, the term tort refers to a wrongful act. It is paramount for Scott to understand that tort is very different from a regular crime. Whereas an individual suffers from injury due to an act of another person and the court can present a redress in a tort, in a crime, the wrong is perceived to target the entire community and the courts are required to follow the prevailing criminal law to offer requisite punishment to the person who is being accused of criminal liability. A person who is perceived to cause harm to another individual due to negligence, is perceived to have committed a tort of negligence. The

Negligence cases and their analyses have dominated our judicial system from its very inception. This can be attributed to the human need to find fault and administer blame for wrong-doings and the mere fact that committing negligence is so simple one may not even realize that it is being committed until one is served with court documents. For example, pretend your home has a very steep step leading to the front door. You are aware of this – after all, you live there – but you want to ensure the safety of all visitors to your home. Suppose each day you place a sign by the driveway that states, “Caution! Beware of steep step;” however, one day you decide to take a vacation and decide that is unnecessary to put the sign out for the duration

“Tort law are to provide relief to injured parties for harms caused by others, to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful acts. Torts can shift the burden of loss from the injured party to the party who is at fault or better suited to bear the burden of the loss.” There are 3 categories of torts; Intention, the person knew or should have known it was not right. Negligent when the persons actions are unsafe and strict liability torts do not depend on the degree of care a person used.

Tort law is a type of law that is designed to offer remedies to civil wrongs. Unlike contractual damages that occur, where responsibility is predetermined, tort law is designed for someone who is legally injured to be able to recover damages from the person who is deemed legally responsible, or liable for such injuries. Tort law is broken down into three main categories, negligence, strict liability, and intentional tort. In negligence tort one is accused of causing damages through their carelessness. After accusation of negligence the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant had duty of care, and that a breach of duty had occurred that caused the damages. Strict liability is a

Definition of personal injury says that any injury or accident, which not only causes physical damage to the body but also leaves a psychological impact. It disturbs the mental condition of the victim. Personal injury law is also known as tort law that is designed to protect the victim from someone else's act of negligence or failure. Court may order compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for suffering from damages. Certain areas which fall under the realm of personal injury are:

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,