•
A duty by the defendant to either act or refrain from acting
•
A breach of that duty, based on a failure to conform to the standard of care by the defendant
•
A causal connection between the defendant’s action or inaction, and the injury to the plaintiff
•
Measurable harm that can be remedied in monetary damages
Foreseeability
Negligence case decisions are influenced by whether or not a defendant could have predicted that an action or
inaction could have resulted in the tort, or foreseeability (Baime, 2018). Responsibility is often based on
whether or not the harm caused by an action or inaction was reasonably foreseeable, which means that the
result was fairly obvious before it occurred (Baime, 2018). A person assisting an inebriated individual into her
car could be considered negligent due to the likelihood that harm would come to her while she is driving in an
intoxicated state. This situation is an example of the foreseeable probability of harm.
Conclusion
Intentional torts and negligence arise based on intentional and unintentional acts committed by individuals.
Damages are decided in civil courts by first determining fault and harm, and then by assigning a remedy.
Sometimes, the damage can be excused if the circumstances indicate that the defendant acted with
permission, or in his or her own defense. The main standard used to make a decision is the reasonable
standard of care: what would a reasonable person do?
6.2
Product and Strict Liability
Determination of fault and damages for intentional torts and negligence are based on the reasonable
standard of care. Another form of torts looks at liability without fault, or strict liability. Strict liability
determines liability, or harm, based on reasons other than fault (CCBC Legal Studies, n.d.). The mistakes
leading to harm can be completely unintentional, and in some cases, unavoidable. Yet, damage is done, and a
civil suit arises.
Strict Liability
Strict liability provides a remedy when harm is suffered through no intentional fault. The courts needed to
create a standard that would cover this form of tort, or one without fault. The courts came up with the
abnormally dangerous activity standard, which assigns responsibility when an individual engages in some
form of dangerous activity, even if care is taken to avoid mishap (CCBC Legal Studies, n.d.). If a homeowner
has horses in a pasture that is bounded by electric fencing, it can be determined that the homeowner
exercised reasonable care. However, suppose that the electricity goes down, the horses get out onto the road,
and an accident occurs as a result. In this case, the owner is responsible, even though he took reasonable care
and the event was unforeseen.
Chapter 6 The Tort System
67