Brill Torts Outline

Starting an argument with, challenging, or baiting the suspect. This statement would be considered involuntary because they communicated in a certain way that got the defendant to release a statement

Contributory Negligence: A court may find a plaintiff contributory negligent or partially responsible for their injuries.

The risk need only be of some harm – not of serious harm, LARKIN (1943). An act aimed at property can still be such that a sober and reasonable person would realise the risk of some harm, GOODFELLOW (1986). There must be a risk of physical harm; mere fear is not enough, DAWSON (1985). The unlawful act must cause the death. The normal rules of causation apply; the act must be the physical and legal cause of death.

An intentional tort case is proved by the plaintiff showing that the defendant intentionally injured him/her (1). In a negligence case, the plaintiff shows that the defendant did not act carefully as the law requires and therefore should be liable for any damages to the plaintiff (1). The strict liability cases occur when a plaintiff suffers damages even though the defendant acted carefully and with no intent of harm being done to them (1).

B. Battery. A battery is a volitional act by the defendant which intentionally causes the

The action is an intentional tort. This means doing a civil wrong and validating a legal duty to another party.

An intentional tort is a person deliberately causing harm or loss to another person. Examples are trespassing, causing a nuisance and defaming are intentional torts.

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

Causation refers to whether the defendant's conduct caused the harm or damage in a crime and it must be established in all result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most cases, factual causation alone will be enough to establish causation. However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. Legal causation is when the result must be caused by a culpable act, the act of the defendant may not necessarily need to be the only cause, but must be more than minimal. Factual causation is

Battery is defined as “an intentional and offensive touching of another without lawful justification” according to Black’s Law Dictionary. The three main elements that

By shooting her husband, the Defendant is the proximate cause of Mrs. Summer’s injury of situational anxiety and psychological hysteria. In order to show that a defendant is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must show that there was a sufficiently close, actual, causal connection between defendants conduct and the actual damage suffered by plaintiff. Rickstad v. Holmberg, 456 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1969). There are two elements in displaying the casual connection. First, plaintiff must show that the defendant’s action is the cause in fact plaintiff’s injury. Second, plaintiff must show that the defendant is the legal cause of her

1. Intentional torts are actions with the purpose or intention to injure another person or that person’s property. The person inflicting the harm is called a tortfeasor. Intentional torts require intent. The person who committed the tort must have intended to cause harm. The harm, however, does not require malice or ill will, just the

A person causes an injury knowingly when she or he basically wants the injury to occur. Therefore as long as the defendant intended to injure someone, he or she can be charged with assault for injuring any other person- even someone

If defendant’s acts or omissions are found to be substantial contributing factors in the injury and without these contributing factors the injury would not have happened, then cause in-fact will be established. Beyond substantial factors, the other element of proximate cause is foreseeability. As Smith and Johnson (2010) have observed, “Employers typically defend nonsubscriber claims on the proximate cause of negligence… Foreseeability is a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case that is often not present in many employee injury cases” (p. 102). Consequently, defendants will likely attack the foreseeability element. The burden will be on the plaintiff to argue that “more likely than not” the defendant’s acts and omissions were the proximate causes of the injury. Expert testimony regarding how the injury occurred, as well as its foreseeability, will be key in determining whether the plaintiff or defendants will prevail. This brings us to the final element should causation be proved – that of

The true definition of intention is not very clear, as there are different definitions by different courts. The term ‘intention’ in criminal law has been defined as direct intention whereby a consequence is intended and desired by the defendant, and indirect (oblique) intentionwhereby the defendant can foresee a virtual certainty.Many seriouscrimes require the proof of intention or recklessness on the part of defendant, and in criminal proceedings, the court or jury must decide whether the accused has the intention or the ability to foresee the result of his actions by reference to all circumstances of the case. Thus, ‘intention’ can be classified as particular, general and