Under the tort liability law, also known as "the law of negligence", a person is considered liable for committing a tort, if they have failed to satisfy the standard of care - a standard determined by the behavior of a reasonably prudent individual. The tortfeasor's actions are measured against the actions of a reasonably prudent person, and they are found to be below-standard, the individual is guilty of negligence. The tort liability law applies mainly to unintentional torts. In the case of intentional torts and strict liability torts, the defendant is found guilty regardless of negligence. If a wrongful act is done deliberately, the possibility of negligence is ruled out automatically.
This type of tort consists of mainly three categories, harm to the person, harm to the right of dignity, and harm to property.Harm to the person includes battery, which is intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact, assault, which is intentional infliction of apprehension of immediate bodily harm or offensive contact, false imprisonment which is intentional confinement of a person against their will, and Infliction of emotional distress, which is extreme conduct intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress. Harm to the right of dignity consists of defamation, which is the false communication that injures a person’s reputation and Invasion of privacy. Harm to property which includes real property which is the land and anything attached to it, thus consisting of trespass to real property which is wrongfully entering on the land of another, nuisance which is non-trespassory interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land, and conversion which is intention exercise of control over another’s personal property. Defenses to intentional torts include the defendant identifying any jurisdictions that could potentially relieve him of liability. It’s up to the courts to decide whether such defenses are enough to excuse the defendant.
State (1989) col. 22 NSCC pt. 111 p. 349 by section 286 of the Criminal Code when a person is unlawfully assaulted and he did not provoke the assault the law expects him to defend himself. He is expected to use such force on his assailant as would be reasonable to make an effective defence. For example if A slaps B and B defends himself by shooting A with a gun, that would be a disproportionate response to an unprovoked assault. The defence must not be intended to cause death or grievous harm.
The fundamental principle that legal wrongs should be remedied outweighs the complete absence of evidence to support the claims of dire consequences if liability was found. Lady Hale, also dissenting, generally supported the analysis of Lord Kerr and would also have allowed the Appellants’ appeal. She stated in her judgement, the policy reasons said to preclude a duty in a case such as this are diminished by the fact that the police already owe a common law, positive duty in public law to protect members of the public from harm caused by third parties, as well as by the existence of the ECHR claims. In her judgement she cites the two main objections to imposing such duty as Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and Brooks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner which set out that he police cannot be held liable for negligence in course of investigating or preventing crime. Whilst the principle is no longer regarded as an immunity, for policy reasons, no liability is imposed by the law.
In Fitzgerald v Kennard , the court was asked to consider whether it is necessary to prove that an accused adverted to the issue of whether or not the complaint was consenting, in order to establish an offence under s 61L. In the same case, Cole JA made a reference to Kirby P’s judgment in R v Kitchener . He agreed to what Kirby P said: “Every individual has a right to the human dignity of his or her own person. Having sexual intercourse with another, without the consent of that other, amounts to an affront to that other’s human dignity and an invasion of the privacy of that person’s body and personality.” Fault elements of these
THE EFFICIENCY OF STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW Most offences are now defined by statute. Usually the statute will state whether the offence requires a mental element and also define what the mental element is. Often the definition uses a word or phrase like “knowingly”, “recklessly”, “wilfully” and “dishonestly” in which it gives guidance to the court. But in some statute this kind of word or phrase is absence, hence the court will find that mens rea is not required. And this is basically in what so called strict liability and it is also can be seen an exception to the general principle of a criminal liability.
In criminal law when a criminal act is alleged to have been committed, the essential requirement for the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime. One of the available defences when a criminal act is committed is that the victim actually gave consent to the acts . The defence of consent is available to certain case that result in bodily harm which includes assault and battery. For instance, in sports there is a physical contact. Participants are deemed to have consented to the physical contact and possible bodily harm.
(Tappan) In the Supreme Court's case of 1921 Brown v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the 7-2 majority opinion, "If a man reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury from his assailant, he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense." With the high profile cases that this law has been associated with, typically being cases that have a high racial impact, the Stand Your Ground Law has been criticized as another law that allows for systematic racism to occur within the United states. “The American legal system's handling of violent self-defense has long favored white, property-owning men. Nonwhite, female,and poor or gender-nonconforming people have always been more likely to be punished for defending themselves and less likely to see the courts come to their aid when they are harmed”
Intentional tort contains element of intent other torts do not have. A person who is affected by legal damages or injury may use tort law to gain compensation from the individual who is responsible, or liable for that affliction. To commit intentional torts, it means that you must do something on purpose or with a clear intent or desire. However the person who commit intentional tort need not have the intent to harm to execute the offence. For example, John wants to surprise his girlfriend by giving her a birthday surprise but John doesn’t know that his girlfriend has an unstable heart condition thus when the surprise happened, the fright causes John’s girlfriend to have a heart attack.
1.0 INTRODUCTION (Thorpe and Thorpe, 2008, p.47) tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. According to Associate Professor, Fordham (2015) negligence as a tort requires more than mere lack of care. A claimant who wishes to sue in negligence must show: (i) that the defendant owed him a legal duty to take care; (ii) that there was a breach of this legal duty by the defendant; and (iii) that the breach caused him recoverable damage. This case relates to an injury claim against a hotel where Elena, a regular guest of The Success Hotel (“TSH”) suffered an injury while she was trapped in TSH’s