Strict Liability Action V. Negligence Action

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person or company responsible for their actions or products which cause damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part. A plaintiff filing a personal injury lawsuit under a strict liability law does not need to show intentional or negligent conduct, only that the defendant's action triggered strict liability and that the plaintiff suffered harm. Whether or not a tort action is considered strict liability and what damages are appropriate will depend on your state law, so consult an experienced personal injury attorney prior to filing a strict liability tort.

Negligence refers to failure to act with a reasonable caution that causes an injury or death of a person. For example, in this case the failure to put a “wet floor” sign is considered an act of negligence, because the person responsible for putting the “wet floor” sign failed to act with care. There are four elements that determine negligence and they are as follow: “a duty to use due care, breach of the duty of due care, actual cause of injuries or damages and the proximate cause of injuries or damages”. In this case, Michelle failed to act with negligence when she forgot to display the “wet sign”, which caused Paul to fall and break his ankle.

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).

Negligence Per Se: Violation of a standard of care set by statute. Example: injuring a

Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were”(National Paralegal College, 2017).

Torts can fall under 3 categories intentional torts, negligent torts, and strict liability. Intentional torts include intentionally

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

Tort of negligence Is a major aspect of tort law and holds a large bearing in many civil cases. Negligence is simply a breach of duty or a

Fault can be defined as legal responsibility or blame for an offence or misdeed. It also refers to the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a D should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause and should therefore aim to avoid such actions.

In this scenario, Randy, who was struck by the BUGusa van, was at fault for not yielding while turning left (University of Phoenix, 2013).  Randy, who failed to yield, would be considered the tortfeasor.  Randy’s actions would be considered negligent because they were not willful. However, Randy’s vehicle was the one that was struck by BUGusa so the tort in this scenario would be considered Strict Liability

What is negligence? In many states, the term is reserved for malpractice claims against doctors, lawyers, architects and accountants: The concept of professional negligence applies to other professionals such as nurses. As a practical matter, although, this is often a meaningless distinction because malpractice and negligence lawsuits generally contain the same elements and carry the same potential for serious legal penalties. (Calfee, 2010, pg. 34)

Following the case R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396, reckless was put into question if the defendant foresee the harm that in fact occurred, might occur from his actions, but continue regardless of the risk. There are two different types of tests for reckless, subjective test and objective test. The difficulty with a subjective test is that it is based entirely on the defendant's state of mind and it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant did anticipate the potential of harm. Negligence is consequences caused by the actions of a person that fell below the standard of a reasonable person. Negligence plays a minor role in criminal liability.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to