The Tort Of Tort Law

Evaluate and discuss the potential liability (negligence or other torts) of the various parties in the scenario involving but not limited to Bobby, ACE Sports, the nurse, the surgeon and City General. (Avoid simply restating the facts/scenario. Incorporate them into your discussion.)

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

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.

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.

The first legal concepts we will cover are Torts. By definition a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Now when dealing with torts the first question that needs to be answer is a question of liability. There are: intentional liability, negligence liability, and strict

Tort reform is the attempt to improve the tort law, which is a civil wrong that unreasonably causes another individual to suffer harm or loss resulting in legal liability for the individual who commits the unjust act. It has been occurring since the 1900s, where certain people, such as wealthy defendants and insurance companies, disliked the idea that people were receiving a limitless amount of money using the tort law. So, many interest groups, lobbyist groups, and PACs (political action committees) took control over reforming the tort law in attempt to achieve the goal of reducing the amount of money defendants would have to pay by putting caps on damages. In this way, large insurance companies and other corporations and groups have

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

Intentional tort is the willful and intentional actions of a person to purposely because general or specific loss or harm from or to others. Intentional tort includes battery, assault, and false Imprisonment Negligence is the failure of a person to practice the legal standards established to protect others against potential risk or harm. The main comparison between intentional tort and negligence is the fact of a person(s) knowing and willfully committing a wrongdoing that will or potential cause loss or harm to others. Hello a negligence claim are the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff the defendant committed a breach of this duty and this breach was the actual and proximate cause of injury experienced by the plaintiff these are all the things needed to win a negligence case.(Mallor, 02/2015, p. 227)

The tort of negligence is the term used to categorise behaviour that poses substantial risks to other people and property.

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).

Business Law-Law Business and Society states that torts are, “civil wrongs not arising from contracts.”(McAdams. P. 278) Torts involve a breach of duty resulting in loss and or injury. Negligence is defined as, “situations in which harm is caused accidently, and no intent is present.” (McAdams. p.279)

1) Introduction a) Definition – A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. A person who breaches a tort duty (i.e., a duty to act in a manner that will not injure another person) has committed a tort and may be

Torts law has various elements like defamation, trespassing negligence etc. The one that concerns this case is negligence. The tort of negligence can be legally brought into action by the person facing damages against the person who had general duty of care for that person.

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.

The court system does not seem to base their judgment on legal elements and legal facts but a major consideration on public policy and interest. This can be seen in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital , where the ratio is that the patient would have died anyway in spite of the doctor’s examination. To impose a liability on the doctor would give rise to many claims, involving many unnecessary claims. However, doctors’ duty is to examine a patient and decide on the plan of treatment, where in this case, the doctor did not even examine the patient. The reluctance of the court to impose a liability on public bodies can also be seen in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . The court was reluctant to impose a liability on the police force, even when the Taylor Report reported that the accident was caused by the negligence of the police force, as they let too many supporters in. There are enough facts in these two cases to impose a liability on the doctor and the police department respectively, however, the reluctant approach from the court towards public bodies have resulted in unsuccessful claims in these two cases.