What's a tort?
Tort
Tort is sometimes viewed as the causes of action which are not defined in other areas such as contract or fiduciary law. However, tort and contract law are similar in that both involve a breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have blurred and it may not be clear whether an action "sounds in tort or contract"; if both apply and different standards apply for each (such as a statute of limitations), courts will determine which is the "gravamen" (the most applicable). Circumstances such as those involving professional negligence may involve both torts and contracts. The choice may affect time limits or damages, particularly given that damages are typically relatively limited in contract cases while in tort cases noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering may be awarded. Punitive damages are relatively uncommon in contractual cases versus tort cases. However, compensation for defective but not unsafe products is typically available only through contractual actions through the law of warranty.
United States tort law
A person commits conversion when he acts intending to exercise "dominion and control" and when interference with the rightful possessor's control results that is so serious that it requires the actor to pay the full value of the chattel to the rightful possessor. An exercise of dominion and control refers to the act. Serious interference refers to the result. Seriousness is determined by the following factors:
The remedy for this cause of action not only requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff the full value of the chattel but also is properly considered a forced sale. The plaintiff must tender the defendant the chattel. Therefore, a plaintiff may not elect to pursue this cause of action but instead trespass to chattel, namely when he wants to keep his chattel despite its potential damage.The following are affirmative defenses to intentional torts.
Battery (tort)
At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them (e.g. a hat, a purse). Unlike assault, in which the fear of imminent contact may support a civil claim, battery involves an actual contact. The contact can be by one person (the tortfeasor) of another (the victim), with or without a weapon, or the contact may be by an object brought about by the tortfeasor. For example, the intentionally bringing a car into contact with another person, or the intentional striking of a person with a thrown rock, is a battery.
Tort
Torts and crimes at common law originate in the Germanic system of compensatory fines for wrongs (OE "unriht"), with no clear distinction between crimes and other wrongs. In Anglo-Saxon law, most wrongs required payment in money or in kind ("bōt", literally 'remedy') to the wronged person or their clan. "Wīte" (literally 'blame, fault') was paid to the king or holder of a court for disturbances of public order.
"Weregild", which was a murder fine based on a victim's worth, was intended to prevent blood feuds. Some wrongs in later law codes were "botleas" 'without remedy' (e.g. theft, open murder, arson, treason against one's lord), that is, unable to be compensated, and those convicted of a "botleas" crime were at the king's mercy. Items or creatures which caused death were also destroyed as deodands. Assessing intention was a matter for the court, but Alfred the Great's Doom Book did distinguish unintentional injuries from intentional ones, whereas culpability depended on status, age, and gender.
Trespass
The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance. "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry, when a person who has the right to enter the land does something not covered by the permission. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land. For the purposes of trespass, the person who owns the land on which a road rests is treated as the owner; it is not, however, a trespass to use that road if the road is constructed with a public use easement, or if, by owner acquiescence or through adverse possession, the road has undergone a common law dedication to the public. In "Hickman v Maisey" and "Adams v. Rivers", the courts established that any use of a road that went beyond using it for its normal purpose could constitute a trespass: " a land owner's property rights may be to the right of mere passage, the owner of the soil is still absolute master."
British courts have broadened the rights encompassed by public easements in recent years. In "DPP v Jones", the court ruled that "the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, providing that the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by reasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass; within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway." The principles established in "Adams" remain valid in American law.
United States tort law
Amongst unintentional torts one finds negligence as being the most common source of common law. Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages. That is, but for the tortfeasor's act or omission, the damages to the plaintiff would not have been incurred, and the damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct.
Common law
By contrast to statutory codification of common law, some statutes displace common law, for example to create a new cause of action that did not exist in the common law, or to legislatively overrule the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the compensation or other remedy available is limited to the remedy specified in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly—that is, limited to their precise terms—because the courts generally recognize the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge-made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision ("cf". judicial activism).
Tort
The more severe penalties available in criminal law also means that it requires a higher burden of proof to be discharged than the related tort. For example, in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that O. J. Simpson had committed the crime of murder; but in a later civil trial, the jury in that case decided that there was sufficient evidence to meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence required to prove the tort of wrongful death.
Binions v Evans
Megaw LJ held that Mrs Evans had rather an equitable life interest, more than a contractual licence. He noted the possibility of a tort being commissioned if someone knowingly acquires a right with the intention of not allowing someone to exercise their contractual right. ‘However, it may be that there are special technical considerations in the law relating to land that would require to be reviewed before one could confidently assert that the ordinary principles as to the protection of known contractual rights would apply.’
English tort law
The common law of tort also remains particularly relevant for the type of liability an employer has where there is scientific uncertainty about the cause of an injury. In asbestos disease cases, a worker may have been employed with at a number of jobs where he was exposed to asbestos, but his injury cannot with certainty be traced to any one. Although he may be able to sue all of them, a number may have already gone insolvent. In "Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd" the House of Lords held that if any employer had materially increased the risk of harm to the worker, they could would be jointly and severally liable and could be sued for the full sum, leaving it up to them to seek contribution from others and thus the risk of other businesses' insolvency. For a brief period, in "Barker v Corus" the House of Lords then decided that employers would only be liable on a proportionate basis, thus throwing the risk of employers' insolvency back onto workers. Immediately Parliament passed the Compensation Act 2006 section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts. It has also been held in "Chandler v Cape plc", in 2011, that even though a subsidiary company is the direct employer of a worker, a parent company will owe a duty of care. Thus shareholders may not be able to hide behind the corporate veil to escape their obligations for the health and safety of the workforce.
Tort reform
It is argued by some that extraordinary damage awards in the United States are a result of the jury system. In federal courts in the United States, the right to a jury trial in most civil cases is entrenched in the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many state constitutions have similar clauses to protect the right to a jury trial in state court proceedings. In many countries, particularly in continental Europe, juries are not used at all even in criminal cases due to the cost of protracted trials necessitated with a jury present and confidence in judicial impartiality. In the United Kingdom, juries are available in criminal cases and for tort cases involving defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Even in these limited areas of tort there have been growing concerns about the juries' role. In particular, the disparity between awards in defamation cases (which invariably concern celebrities, politicians and the rich) and awards for personal injuries has been growing. Inevitably, the awards rose in a way that a fixed system of damages under judicial scrutiny does not allow. Juries are unseasoned with a daily exposure to tragic accidents in tort litigation. When confronted with their first case they may be shocked and outraged, which inspires a willingness to teach the wrongdoer by a big damages award that "tort does not pay".
United States tort law
Product liability refers to the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers for unreasonably dangerous products.Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue for anything from a free speech claim to use of excessive force by the police. Tort claims arising out of injuries occurring on vessels on navigable waters of the United States fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction.
Intentional tort
Not every intentional action qualifies as an intentional tort. Suppose an investor holding more than half of a corporation's stock votes on changes the other stockholders find detrimental. If the other stockholders suffer damages as a result, this is not a tort (in the majority of jurisdictions), as the powerful investor had a right to vote whichever way he liked. Thus, the other stockholders cannot sue the aforementioned investor for damages. (California is the notable exception to this rule, at least as to closely held corporations.) If, however, John Doe physically attacks a passerby in the street, John is liable for these costs, as he is guilty of the tort of battery. Actual damages are not required for a prima facie case of battery.
United States tort law
The elements of most intentional torts follow the same pattern: intent, act, result, and causation.
Feres v. United States
This Court, in deciding claims for wrongs incident to service under the Tort Claims Act, cannot escape attributing some bearing upon it to enactments by Congress which provide systems of simple, certain, and uniform compensation for injuries or death of those in armed services.[12] We might say that the claimant may (a) enjoy both types of recovery, or (b) elect which to pursue, thereby waiving the other, or (c) pursue both, crediting the larger liability with the proceeds of the smaller, or (d) that the compensation and pension remedy excludes the tort remedy. There is as much statutory authority for one as for another of these conclusions. If Congress had contemplated that this Tort Act would be held to apply in cases of this kind, it is difficult to see why it should have omitted any provision to adjust these two types of remedy to each other. The absence of any such adjustment is persuasive that there was no awareness that the Act might be interpreted to permit recovery for injuries incident to military service.
Alien Tort Statute
The Alien Tort Statute (; ATS), also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section of the United States Code that reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.
Intentional tort
The key difference between intentional torts and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the "additional" element that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform ("i.e.," acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (so-called malice). "The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require that defendants know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences." Under doctrines such as transferred intent, the plaintiff need not always prove that the defendant acted with the intent to bring about the specific injury that actually occurred.
Tort
Proximate cause means that you must be able to show that the harm was caused by the tort you are suing for. The defense may argue that there was a prior cause or a superseding intervening cause. A common situation where a prior cause becomes an issue is the personal injury car accident, where the person re-injures an old injury. For example, someone who has a bad back is injured in the back in a car accident. Years later he is still in pain. He must prove the pain is caused by the car accident, and not the natural progression of the previous problem with the back. A superseding intervening cause happens shortly after the injury. For example, if after the accident the doctor who works on you commits malpractice and injures you further, the defense can argue that it was not the accident, but the incompetent doctor who caused your injury.
Tort
If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's liability. The legal maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio", Latin for "no right of action arises from a despicable cause". Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have been sustained but for the property owner's intervention.
Law of South Korea
Korean Civil Code Article 750 defines torts by stating "Any person who causes losses to or inflicts injuries on another person by an unlawful act, willfully or negligently, shall make compensation for damages."
Tort law in Australia
Generally, torts are not defined within specific statutes or legislation and have evolved through judge-made law, or common law. However, each state has also created statutes to override the common law, especially in the areas of negligence, personal injuries and defamation, where that has proven necessary.
Assault (tort)
In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. In Criminal Law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury.
Tort
The right of victims to receive redress was regarded by later English scholars as one of the rights of Englishmen. Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", which was published in the late 18th century, contained a volume on "private wrongs" as torts and even used the word "tort" in a few places.
Slip and fall
A slip and fall injury, also known as a trip and fall, is a premises liability claim, a type of personal injury claim or case based on a person slipping (or tripping) on the premises of another and, as a result, suffering injury. It is a tort. A person who is injured by falling may be entitled to monetary compensation for the injury from the owner or person in possession of the premises where the injury occurred.
Tort
In certain instances, different jurisdictions' law may apply to a tort, in which case rules have developed for which law to apply. This occurs particularly in the United States, where each of the 50 states may have different state laws, but also may occur in other countries with a federal system of states, or internationally.
Conversion (law)
Conversion has been described as a fascinating tort, albeit one which has largely eluded the attention of legal writers. The literature frequently laps over into that of trover. Other sources define conversion as a distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his title or rights therein, or in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of such title or rights, without the owner's consent and without lawful justification.
Causation (law)
Sometimes causation is one part of a multi-stage test for legal liability. For example, for the defendant to be held liable for the tort of negligence, the defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty, by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff, and that damage must not have been too remote. Causation is just one component of the tort.
Economic torts
These torts represent the common law's historical attempt to balance the need to protect claimants against those who inflict economic harm and the wider need to allow effective, even aggressive, competition (including competition between employers and their workers).
Tort law in India
Another area of tort that developed in India which differs from the UK is the availability of constitutional torts. Creating constitutional torts is a public law remedy for violations of rights, generally by agents of the state, and is implicitly premised on the strict liability principle. The tort was further entrenched when the court allowed compensation to be awarded as "a remedy available in public law; based on strict liability for the contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort". This approach is vastly different from the approach taken in UK as compensation for damages is not an available public law remedy.
Dignitary tort
Historically, the primary dignitary torts were battery, assault, and false imprisonment, as each claimed harm to a person's human dignity. A cause of action could be brought for battery, for example, even if no injury was done to the plaintiff, so long as the contact would be offensive to a reasonable person. Under modern jurisprudence the category of dignitary torts is more closely associated with secondary dignitary torts, most notably defamation (slander and libel), false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and alienation of affections. In some jurisdictions, the phrase is limited to those torts which do not require physical injury or threat of physical injury, limiting the class to only those secondary incidents.
Intentional tort
As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in civil liability legislation, thus excluding the threshold of injury and damages payouts from various legislated limitations and caps. But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing.
Tort
Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts).
Tort
Negligence is a tort which arises from the breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. Although credited as appearing in the United States in "Brown v. Kendall", the later Scottish case of "Donoghue v Stevenson" [1932] AC 562, followed in England, brought England into line with the United States and established the 'tort of negligence' as opposed to negligence as a component in specific actions. In "Donoghue", Mrs. Donoghue drank from an opaque bottle containing a decomposed snail and claimed that it had made her ill. She could not sue Mr. Stevenson for damages for breach of contract and instead sued for negligence. The majority determined that the definition of negligence can be divided into four component parts that the plaintiff must prove to establish negligence. The elements in determining the liability for negligence are:
In certain cases, negligence can be assumed under the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" (Latin for "the thing itself speaks"); particularly in the United States, a related concept is "negligence per se".
Trespass in English law
The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance. "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land. For the purposes of trespass, the person who owns the land on which a road rests is treated as the owner; it is not, however, a trespass to use that road if public. In "Hickman v Maisey", it was established that any use of a road that went beyond using it for its normal purpose could constitute a trespass, but this was altered by "DPP v Jones". Lord Irvine, giving the leading judgment, said that "the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, providing that the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by reasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass; within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway".
English tort law
There is some overlap between crime and tort, since tort, a private action, used to be used more than criminal laws in centuries gone. For example, an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example by the payment of damages to a person injured in a car accident, or the obtaining of injunctive relief to stop a person interfering with their business). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a person — although often criminal courts do have power to grant such remedies — but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf. That explains why incarceration is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for torts.
United States tort law
Intentional torts involve situations in which the defendant desires or knows to a substantial certainty that his act will cause the plaintiff damage. They include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, and defamation of character (libel/slander).
Assault
An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.
Law
Torts, sometimes called delicts, are civil wrongs. To have acted tortiously, one must have breached a duty to another person, or infringed some pre-existing legal right. A simple example might be accidentally hitting someone with a cricket ball. Under the law of negligence, the most common form of tort, the injured party could potentially claim compensation for their injuries from the party responsible. The principles of negligence are illustrated by "Donoghue v Stevenson". A friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered an opaque bottle of ginger beer (intended for the consumption of Mrs Donoghue) in a café in Paisley. Having consumed half of it, Mrs Donoghue poured the remainder into a tumbler. The decomposing remains of a snail floated out. She claimed to have suffered from shock, fell ill with gastroenteritis and sued the manufacturer for carelessly allowing the drink to be contaminated. The House of Lords decided that the manufacturer was liable for Mrs Donoghue's illness. Lord Atkin took a distinctly moral approach, and said,
Necessity (tort)
In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land, or conversion. The Latin phrase from common law is "necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata" ("Necessity induces a privilege because of a private right"). A court will grant this privilege to a trespasser when the risk of harm to an individual or society is apparently and reasonably greater than the harm to the property. Unlike the privilege of self-defense, those who are harmed by individuals invoking the necessity privilege are usually free from any wrongdoing. Generally, an individual invoking this privilege is obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive or nominal damages.
Privacy in English law
There is currently no freestanding right to privacy in common law. This point was reaffirmed when the House of Lords ruled in Home Office v Wainwright (a case involving a strip search undertaken on the plaintiff Alan Wainwright while visiting Armley prison). It has also been stated that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require the development of an independent tort of privacy. In the absence of a common law right to privacy in English law torts such as the equitable doctrine breach of confidence, torts linked to the intentional infliction of harm to the person and public law torts relating to the use of police powers have been used to fill a gap in the law. The judiciary has developed the law in an incremental fashion and have resisted the opportunity to create a new tort.
Tort law in India
Tort law in India is a relatively new common law development supplemented by codifying statutes including statutes governing damages. While India generally follows the UK approach, there are certain differences which may indicate judicial activism, hence creating controversy. Tort is breach of some duty independent of contract which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If there is no remedy it cannot be called a tort because the essence of tort is to give remedy to the person who has suffered injury.
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
Some tort-law specialists have been very critical of the burden-shifting test. Georgia law professor Michael L. Wells finds it at odds with the fundamental principles of tort law and thus wrongly decided. "It should be replaced by a rule that allows the plaintiff to recover full damages when the constitutional violation was sufficient to cause them." The Court, he wrote in 2000, could have found other causation tests in tort law that were fairer to the plaintiff than but-for, such as suffi. "It is especially ill-suited to constitutional torts charging retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights" since it ensures that an employee who speaks out on a matter of public concern will have to consider the possibility that his or her employer will find some plausible reasons for taking action against him apart from his protected speech or other activity.
Strict liability
In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in "Re Polemis".
Tort
A statutory tort is like any other, in that it imposes duties on private or public parties, however they are created by the legislature, not the courts. For example, the European Union's "Product Liability Directive" imposes strict liability for defective products that harm people; such strict liability is not uncommon although not necessarily statutory.
Noise regulation
Nuisances are part of tort law. Torts are civil wrongs whether intentional or accidental from which injury occurs to another. Nuisances can be public or private. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public while a private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. Black's Law Dictionary defines a nuisance as"... that which annoys and disturbs one in possession of his property, rendering its ordinary use and occupation physically uncomfortable to him." It defines a private nuisance as:.."anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another. As distinguished from public nuisance, it includes any wrongful act which destroys or deteriorates the property of an individual or of a few persons or interferes with their lawful use or enjoyment thereof, or any act which unlawfully hinders them in the enjoyment of a common or public right and causes them a special injury different from that sustained by the general public." The word "nuisance" is connected closely with the word "disturbance" which is used extensively in many noise ordinances. A definition below further restricts the meaning to "noise disturbance". Nuisance law applies to both community noise regulation as well as private suits brought to court to reduce noise impact.
Intentional tort
An assault is the immediate intentional creation of apprehension of another without consent or privilege. A battery is the intentional harmful or offensive touching of another without consent or privilege. A conversion is the intentional exercise of dominion and control of another's property without their consent or privilege. False imprisonment is the intent to confine or bound someone without a means of egress. Trespass to land is the intentional interference with the land of another without consent or privilege. Trespass to chattel is the intentional interference with the personal property of another without consent or privilege.
Quasi-tort
Quasi-tort is a legal term that is sometimes used to describe unusual tort actions, on the basis of a legal doctrine that some legal duty exists which cannot be classified strictly as negligence in a personal duty resulting in a tort nor as a contractual duty resulting in a breach of contract, but rather some other kind of duty recognizable by the law. It has been used, for example, to describe a tort for strict liability arising out of product liability, although this is typically simply called a 'tort'.
R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on tort law. The Court rejected the tort of breach of statutory duty.The courts should only use breaches of a statute as evidence towards an established tort and should not be trying to determine whether the legislature intended to allow a private right of action.
Trespass
There are three types of trespass, the first of which is trespass to the person. Whether intent is a necessary element of trespass to the person varies by jurisdiction. Under English decision, "Letang v Cooper", intent is required to sustain a trespass to the person cause of action; in the absence of intent, negligence is the appropriate tort. In other jurisdictions, gross negligence is sufficient to sustain a trespass to the person, such as when a defendant negligently operates an automobile and strikes the plaintiff with great force. "Intent is to be presumed from the act itself." Generally, trespass to the person consists of three torts: assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
Tortious interference
Wrongful interference: the unified theory which treated causing loss by unlawful means as an extension of the tort of inducing a breach of contract was abandoned; inducing breach of contract and causing loss by unlawful means were two separate torts.
inducing a breach of contract was a tort of accessory liability, and an intention to cause a breach of contract was a necessary and sufficient requirement for liability; a person had to know that he was inducing a breach of contract and to intend to do; that a conscious decision not to inquire into the existence of a fact could be treated as knowledge for the purposes of the tort; that a person who knowingly induced a breach of contract as a means to an end had the necessary intent even if he was not motivated by malice but had acted with the motive of securing an economic advantage for himself; that, however, a breach of contract which was neither an end in itself nor a means to an end but was merely a foreseeable consequence of a person’s acts did not give rise to liability; and that there could be no secondary liability without primary liability, and therefore a person could not be liable for inducing a breach of contract unless there had in fact been a breach by the contracting party.
Full tort and limited tort automobile insurance
Individuals who now purchase insurance in Pennsylvania are classified as either “limited tort” or “full tort.” Tort is a legal term meaning “civil wrongdoing – in civil law, a wrongful act for which damages can be sought by the injured party.”
Tort
Intentional torts include, among others, certain torts arising from the occupation or use of land. The tort of nuisance, for example, involves strict liability for a neighbor who interferes with another's enjoyment of his real property. Trespass allows owners to sue for entrances by a person (or his structure, such as an overhanging building) on their land. Several intentional torts do not involve land. Examples include false imprisonment, the tort of unlawfully arresting or detaining someone, and defamation (in some jurisdictions split into libel and slander), where false information is broadcast and damages the plaintiff's reputation. Other intentional torts include Battery, Assault, Trespass to Chattels, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Misrepresentation, and Alienation of Affections.
Dignitary tort
A dignitary tort is type of intentional tort where the cause of action is being subjected to certain kinds of indignities. Historically, this category of torts was often covered by the old English writ of trespass "vi et armis".
Damages (Jewish law)
Torts or "damages" include any wrongful act, neglect, or default whereby legal harm is caused to the person, property, or reputation of another. Damages usually give rise to some form of compensatory liability, though some exceptional damages may be prohibited (or merely deprecated) without concomitant liability. Under rabbinic law, there are important distinctions between damages caused by persons or by property, and between direct and indirect action. When people cause damage directly, they are covered by the rabbinic equivalent of either assault and battery, against another person, or trespass against another's property. When one's property causes damage, Jewish law may distinguish torts due to such factors as accidents, negligence, fault or wilful fraud.
Tort
Many jurisdictions, especially the US, retain punitive elements in tort damages, for example in anti-trust and consumer-related torts, making tort blur the line with criminal acts. Also there are situations where, particularly if the defendant ignores the orders of the court, a plaintiff can obtain a punitive remedy against the defendant, including imprisonment. Some torts may have a public elementfor example, public nuisanceand sometimes actions in tort will be brought by a public body. Also, while criminal law is primarily punitive, many jurisdictions have developed forms of monetary compensation or restitution which criminal courts can directly order the defendant to pay to the victim.
Tort
The most common action in tort is negligence. The tort of negligence provides a cause of action leading to damages, or to relief, in each case designed to protect legal rights, including those of personal safety, property, and, in some cases, intangible economic interests or noneconomic interests such as the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress in the United States. Negligence actions include claims coming primarily from car accidents and personal injury accidents of many kinds, including clinical negligence, worker's negligence and so forth. Product liability cases, such as those involving warranties, may also be considered negligence actions or, particularly in the United States, may apply regardless of negligence or intention through strict liability.
Deception
For legal purposes, deceit is a tort that occurs when a person makes a factual misrepresentation, knowing that it is false (or having no belief in its truth and being reckless as to whether it is true) and intending it to be relied on by the recipient, and the recipient acts to his or her detriment in reliance on it. Deceit may also be grounds for legal action in contract law (known as misrepresentation, or if deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation), or a criminal prosecution, on the basis of fraud.
Tort
From the late 1950s a group of legally oriented economists and economically oriented lawyers known as law and economics scholars emphasized incentives and deterrence, and identified the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of risk. Ronald Coase, a principal proponent, argued in "The Problem of Social Cost" (1960) that the aim of tort law, when transaction costs are high, should be to reflect as closely as possible the allocation of risk and liability at which private parties arrive when transaction costs are low.
Tort
Since the mid-to-late 20th century, calls for reform of tort law have come from various perspectives. Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential claimants. For example, because not all people who have accidents can find solvent defendants from which to recover damages in the courts, P. S. Atiyah has called the situation a "damages lottery". Consequently, in New Zealand, the government in the 1960s established a no-fault system of state compensation for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of command papers in the UK and much academic debate.
Outline of tort law
Tort law – defines what a legal injury is and, therefore, whether a person may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries. They may also include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights.
Economic torts
In English labour law the most notable case is "Taff Vale Railway v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants". The House of Lords thought that unions should be liable in tort for helping workers to go on strike for better pay and conditions. But it riled workers so much that it led to the creation of the British Labour Party and the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, interference with a commercial contract or intimidation.
Case of the Thorns
Although the decision was divided, the majority held that if a person damages another property there is a tort even if the action that brought such damages was itself lawful. As Pigot, J states, "And so if a man has a fish-pond in his manor and he empties the water out of the pond to take the fishes and the water floods my land, I shall have a good action, and yet the act was lawful."This case excerpt was summarised in "Bessy v Olliot & Lambert" (1681) as follows.
Full tort and limited tort automobile insurance
In Pennsylvania, insurance companies offer full tort coverage which gives covered individuals the ability to sue in court for all damages, and limited tort coverage which “limits” the ability to sue for pain and suffering. Both full tort and limited tort coverage only apply in situations where the driver or passengers have been injured in an accident that is not the driver's fault. The victim then has the option of bringing charges against the at-fault driver to sue in court for unpaid medical bills, property damage, loss of income, pain, and suffering.
Tort
In the U.S., reform has typically limited the scope of tort law and damages available, such as limiting joint and several liability, the collateral source rule, or capping noneconomic damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. These reform statutes are sometimes rejected as unconstitutional under the state constitutions by state supreme courts, with the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution possibly also relevant. Theoretical and policy considerations are central to fixing liability for pure economic loss and of public bodies.
Law of the United States
Tort law generally covers any civil action between private parties arising from wrongful acts which amount to a breach of general obligations imposed by law and not by contract.
London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne &amp; Nagel International Ltd
McLachlin J concurred, but for different reasons. Tort and contract constitute separate legal regimes, and the appellant's action against the employees in this case is necessarily in tort, since there was no contract between them. The theory of voluntary assumption of the risk permits an employee sued in tort to rely on a term of limitation in his employer's contract. The plaintiff, having agreed to the limitation of liability "vis à vis" the employer, must be taken to have done so with respect to the employer's employees.
Transferred intent
Transferred intent also applies to tort law. In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any "intent" to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the actual target of the tort is one other than the intended target of the original tort.
Tort
Defamation is tarnishing the reputation of someone; it has two varieties, "slander" and "libel". Slander is spoken defamation and libel is printed or broadcast defamation. The two otherwise share the same features: making a factual assertion for which evidence does not exist. Defamation does not affect or hinder the voicing of opinions, but does occupy the same fields as rights to free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Related to defamation in the U.S. are the actions for misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are often classified as dignitary torts as well.
United States tort law
Extreme and outrageous conduct refers to the act. Severe emotional distress refers to the result. This is another intentional tort for which no damage is ordinarily required. However, some jurisdictions require the accompaniment of physical effects. In other words, emotional distress will not be deemed to exist in those jurisdictions unless there are physical manifestations, such as vomiting or fainting.
Chase v. Curtis
It is finally insisted that a judgment against the corporation, although founded upon a tort, becomes ipso facto a debt by contract, being a contract of record or a specialty in the nature of a contract. But we have already seen that the settled course of decision in the New York Court of Appeals rejects the judgment against the corporation as either evidence or ground of liability against the trustees, and founds the latter upon the obligation of the corporation on which the judgment itself rests. And it was decided by this Court in the case of Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, that a liability for a tort, created by statute, although reduced to judgment by a recovery for the damages suffered, did not thereby become a debt by contract in the sense of the Constitution of the United States forbidding state legislation impairing its obligation, for the reason that the term 'contract' is used in the Constitution in its ordinary sense as signifying the agreement of two or more minds, for considerations proceeding from one to the other, to do or not to do certain acts. Mutual assent to its terms is of its very essence."
Criminal conversation
At common law, criminal conversation, commonly known as "crim. con.", is a tort arising from adultery, abolished in almost all jurisdictions. ("Conversation" is an old expression for sexual intercourse that is obsolete except as part of this term.)
It is similar to breach of promise, a tort involving a broken engagement against the betrothed, and alienation of affection, a tort action brought by a spouse against a third party, who interfered with the marriage relationship. These torts have been abolished in most jurisdictions.
English tort law
Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories, including tort(s) against the person, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant. Those commonly recognised include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion.Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law and modern antitrust or competition law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon."
Economic torts in English law
The principal torts can be listed as passing off, injurious falsehood and trade libel (see also Food libel laws), conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract, tortious interference (such as interference with economic relations or unlawful interference with trade), and watching and besetting. These torts represent the common law's historical attempt to balance the need to protect claimants against those who inflict economic harm and the wider need to allow effective, even aggressive, competition (including competition between employers and their workers).
Tort
In the international comparison of modern tort law, common law jurisdictions based upon English tort law have foundational differences from civil law jurisdiction, which may be based on the Roman concept of delict. Even among common law countries, however, significant differences exist. For example, in England legal fees of the winner are paid by the loser (the English rule versus the American rule of attorney fees). Common law systems include United States tort law, Australian tort law, Canadian tort law, Irish tort law, and Scots Law of Delict. The Jewish law of rabbinic damages is another example although tort in Israeli law is technically similar to English law as it was enacted by British Mandate of Palestine authorities in 1944 and took effect in 1947. There is more apparent split between the Commonwealth countries (principally England, Canada and Australia) and the United States, although Canada may be more influenced by the United States due to its proximity.
Tort reform
In tort and personal injury cases, the plaintiff can receive compensation in economic, non-economic, and punitive damages. Tort reform in part aims to place caps on punitive and non-economic damages to prevent frivolous cases from taking advantage of the system, thereby benefiting those who pay for insurance, as it is argued that excessive litigation encourages insurers to pass the impact of legal expenses on to the insured by raising average premiums. However, there are a notable instances where these caps have disadvantaged plaintiffs by preventing them from acquiring compensation adequate to what their case deserves.
Trespass to land
Trespass to land is a common law tort or crime that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is "actionable per se". Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort.
Tort reform
The classical purpose of tort is to provide "full compensation" for proved harm. This is known under the Latin phrase "restitutio in integrum" (restoration to original state). In other words, the idea underpinning the law of tort is that if someone harms someone else, they should make up for it. Compensation should be, in the words of Lord Blackburn in "Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co",
Intentional tort
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.
Alienation of affections
Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections. As of 2016, six US states (Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah), recognize this tort, as well as Puerto Rico.
Fraud
In common law jurisdictions, as a civil wrong, fraud is a tort. While the precise definitions and requirements of proof vary among jurisdictions, the requisite elements of fraud as a tort generally are the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim. Proving fraud in a court of law is often said to be difficult. That difficulty is found, for instance, in that each and every one of the elements of fraud must be proven, that the elements include proving the states of mind of the perpetrator and the victim, and that some jurisdictions require the victim to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
Tort
Roman law contained provisions for torts in the form of delict, which later influenced the civil law jurisdictions in Continental Europe, but a distinctive body of law arose in the common law world traced to English tort law. The word 'tort' was first used in a legal context in the 1580s, although different words were used for similar concepts prior to this time.
Intentional tort
Dignitary torts are the class of intentional tort, including slander and libel, that arise when the right invaded involves the reputation or privacy of the individual claiming industry.
Quasi-tort
Tort law has been modified by statute to expand protection, and limit liability. Many tort law statutes have their origins in common law, and are interpreted through common law. These include worker's compensation, insurance law, consumer protection laws, labor law, products liability law, energy law, compensation to relatives on death, anti-discrimination law, and other miscellaneous and difficult-to-categorize areas of law. This may include statutory law or administrative regulation that define, aid interpretation (construction), provide means to calculate quantum of damages, clarify personal responsility, or replace torts with their origins in common law.
Defamation
Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury", "intentional infliction of emotional distress", "outrageousness", or "convicium", involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract", and "negligent misrepresentation".
Seduction (tort)
Initially, the tort of seduction was a remedy for a father's property interest in his daughter's chastity. However, the damages to which the father would be entitled were based on the father's loss of the working services of a daughter, much as a master could sue if a third-party caused injury to his servant that rendered the servant unable to work, because she was "seduced and debauched" and became pregnant as a result of nonmarital sexual activity. The tort of seduction was one of the most common civil actions toward the end of the 19th century, and fathers were often successful before juries.
Tort reform
Proponents of the existing tort system contend that tort reform advocates exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits of the current tort system. For example, consumer advocates and legal scholars contend that lawsuits encourage corporations to produce safer products, discourage them from selling dangerous products such as asbestos, and encourage more safe and effective medical practices. Beginning in the early 1980s, Professor Stephen Teret and other faculty at The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health argued that tort litigation was an important tool for the prevention of injuries. While Teret acknowledged that the primary purpose of tort lawsuits usually is to recover money damages for the injured persons, as compensation for their medical and other costs, he identified several ways that litigation can also enhance safety for everyone, including:
Insurance bad faith
If an insurance company violates that covenant, the insured person (or "policyholder") may sue the company on a tort claim in addition to a standard breach of contract claim. The contract-tort distinction is significant because as a matter of public policy, punitive or exemplary damages are unavailable for contract claims, but are available for tort claims. In addition, consequential damages for breach of contract are traditionally subject to certain constraints not applicable to tort actions (see "Hadley v. Baxendale"). The result is that a plaintiff in an insurance bad faith case may be able to recover an amount "larger" than the original face value of the policy, if the insurance company's conduct was particularly egregious.
Tort
United States tort law was influenced by English law and Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", with several state constitutions specifically providing for redress for torts in addition to reception statutes which adopted English law. However, tort law was viewed as relatively undeveloped by the mid-19th century; the first American treatise on torts was published in the 1860s but the subject became particularly established when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr wrote on the subject in the 1880s. Holmes' writings have been described as the "first serious attempt in the common law world to give torts both a coherent structure and a distinctive substantive domain", although Holmes' summary of the history of torts has been critically reviewed. The 1928 US case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. heavily influenced the British judges in the 1932 House of Lords case of  Donoghue v Stevenson.
Tort
The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in damages or money. In a limited range of cases, tort law will tolerate self-help, such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser. This is a defense against the tort of battery. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant an injunction, such as in the English case "Miller v Jackson" (1977). This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as restraining the continuance or threat of harm. Usually injunctions will not impose positive obligations on tortfeasors, but some Australian jurisdictions can make an order for specific performance to ensure that the defendant carries out their legal obligations, especially in relation to nuisance matters.
English tort law
Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, providing a wide scope of protection, especially since "Donoghue v Stevenson". For liability under negligence, a duty of care must be established owed to a group of persons to which the victim belongs, a nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled.
English tort law
From the late 1950s a group of legally oriented economists and economically oriented lawyers emphasised incentives and deterrence, and identified the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of risk. They are often described as the "law and economics movement". Ronald Coase, one of the movement's principal proponents, submitted, in his article "The Problem of Social Cost" (1960), that the aim of tort should be to reflect as closely as possible liability where transaction costs should be minimised.
Canadian tort law
As with most common-law countries, Canadian tort law is primarily judge-made law, much of which is inherited from English tort law, which is supplemented by mostly provincial regulatory laws such as provincial automotive safety Acts. The core of Canadian tort law has not strayed far from its English origins, however, it is in the evolving areas of law, such as nuisance, defamation, or medical liability, where Canadian jurisprudence has set out on its own. The defendant in a tort suit is called the tortfeasor, and most often, financial compensation is what tort victims acquire. All torts require proof of fault in order to determine legal responsibility, however, fault is measured differently for the different types of tort. The main difference between intentional torts and unintentional torts is intent. An intentional tort is when a person intends to achieve a particular outcome that results in injury to people or damage to property, whereas an unintentional tort such as negligence, occurs when there has been a lack of duty of care or foreseeability that results in injury to people or damage to property. There are criminal code offences in Canada that could also qualify as tort law under common law. However, most victims do not sue those who are criminally charged since the accused do not have the financial means to pay back the victim or because the accused is incarcerated.
United States tort law
In contrast, if all that can be said about the defendant's state of mind is that he "should have" known better, he will not be liable for an intentional tort. This situation might occur if, as opposed to the examples above, Dave shoots a gun in a remote part of the desert without looking just for fun, not wanting to hit anyone, but the bullet does hit someone. Dave did not have a desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty that someone would get hit in this situation. He may, however, be liable for some other tort, namely negligence.
Conflict of tort laws
However, if the tort was intentional, there are two competing theories as to which law is the most appropriate. For example, A writes a defamatory letter in State X and posts it to B in State Y, clearly damaging the reputation of C in State Y. The "initiatory" or "subjective" theory provides that the "proper law" is the law of the state in which all the initial components of the tort occurred. In the example given, A may never have left State X and the argument would be made that State X would have the better claim to determine the extent of liability for those who, whether temporarily or not, owe it allegiance. Hence, if A sent a reference to B about C in the ordinary course of business, or submitted for publication by B a review of an artistic work by C, the policy claims of State X would be strong. The "terminatory" or "objective" theory provides that the law of the state in which the last component occurred (i.e. where the loss or damage was sustained) should be the proper law. Here, the argument is that unless and until the damage is sustained, the tort is not complete. Unlike criminal law, there is no liability for attempted tort. Hence, since the tort does not exist to give rise to liability until the letter is read by B in State Y, only State Y has an interest in the application of its laws. There is no international agreement on which theory is to be preferred and each state therefore applies its local choice of law rules. But the enforceability of any judgment would be a relevant consideration. Suppose that the law of State X might offer a partial or complete defence to A. Hence, C naturally prefers to invoke the jurisdiction of State Y's courts. If there is no system for reciprocal and automatic registration and enforcement of judgments between the two states, State Y (and any other State in which jurisdiction might be sought) would be reluctant to accept the case since no court likes to waste its time in hearing a case if it is not going to be enforceable.
Tort
After the Norman Conquest, fines were paid only to courts or the king, and quickly became a revenue source. A wrong became known as a "tort" or "trespass", and there arose a division between civil pleas and pleas of the crown. The petty assizes (i.e. of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment) were established in 1166 as a remedy for interference with possession of freehold land. The trespass action was an early civil plea in which damages were paid to the victim; if no payment was made, the defendant was imprisoned. The plea arose in local courts for slander, breach of contract, or interference with land, goods, or persons. Although the details of its exact origin are unclear, it became popular in royal courts so that in the 1250s the writ of trespass was created and made "de cursu" (available by right, not fee); however, it was restricted to interference with land and forcible breaches of the king's peace. It may have arisen either out of the "appeal of felony", or assize of novel disseisin, or replevin. Later, after the Statute of Westminster 1285, in the 1360s, the "trespass on the case" action arose for when the defendant did not direct force. As its scope increased, it became simply "action on the case". The English Judicature Act passed 1873 through 1875 abolished the separate actions of trespass and trespass on the case.
Passing off in Canadian law
Professor David Vaver suggests generally that "[t]he basic theory of the tort is to prevent the disruption of economic relations by deliberate or innocent misrepresentations that deceive or confuse consumers in their marketplace decisions." Vaver also notes the centrality and complementarity of both purposes in the tort of passing off and trade-mark law:
The role of passing-off is therefore to rectify the likely harms one trader suffers from the acts of another that mistakenly deflect consumers from dealing with the former or his products or services. Although the tort grew up to protect the interests of traders rather than consumers, the less it works to prevent consumer confusion, the more it becomes merely a law protecting traders from unfair competition. That goal may be what other torts, such as conspiracy or unlawful interference with economic relations, and "Competition Act" provisions regulating false and misleading advertising practices aim at. Passing-off need not replicate their aspirations.
Vi et armis
Trespass vi et armis was a kind of lawsuit at common law called a tort. The cause of action alleged a trespass upon person or property "vi et armis", Latin for "by force and arms." The plaintiff would allege in a pleading that the act committing the offense was "immediately injurious to another's property, and therefore necessarily accompanied by some degree of force; and by special action "on the case", where the act is in itself indifferent and the injury only consequential, and therefore arising without any breach of the peace." Thus it was "immaterial whether the injury was committed willfully or not."
Trespass
Under the statutes of various common law jurisdictions, assault is both a crime and a tort. Generally, a person commits criminal assault if he purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts bodily injury upon another; if he negligently inflicts bodily injury upon another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through physical menace, he places another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. A person commits tortious assault when he engages in "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery [bodily injury]". In some jurisdictions, there is no requirement that actual physical violence result—simply the "threat of unwanted touching of the victim" suffices to sustain an assault claim. Consequently, in "R v Constanza", the court found a stalker's threats could constitute assault. Similarly, silence, given certain conditions, may constitute an assault as well. However, in other jurisdictions, simple threats are insufficient; they must be accompanied by an action or condition to trigger a cause of action.
Public liability
Public liability is part of the law of tort which focuses on civil wrongs. An applicant (the injured party) usually sues the respondent (the owner or occupier) under common law based on negligence and/or damages. Claims are usually successful when it can be shown that the owner/occupier was responsible for an injury, therefore they breached their duty of care.
Tort
In some cases, the development of tort law has spurred lawmakers to create alternative solutions to disputes. For example, in some areas, workers' compensation laws arose as a legislative response to court rulings restricting the extent to which employees could sue their employers in respect of injuries sustained during employment. In other cases, legal commentary has led to the development of new causes of action outside the traditional common law torts. These are loosely grouped into quasi-torts or liability torts.
Malicious falsehood
Malicious falsehood or injurious falsehood is a tort. It is a lie that was uttered with malice, that is, the utterer knew it was false or would cause damage or harm.