Intentional Tort Law

956 Words4 Pages
Torts are defined as wrongdoings committed by one party against another party. When a tort is committed, the injured party may sue the other party that engaged in the wrongdoing. Tort law is set to decide whether a party should be held legally responsible for the injury caused to another party, and also what type of compensation the injured party should acquire if it needs so. An example of a tort is when a customer trips on loose cables in an electronics store. The customer becomes the injured party; the plaintiff; and the electronics store becomes the negligent party; the defendant. The civil action that may be taken against the electronics store includes a redress for the pain, suffering, medical bills or similar expenses that arise as an…show more content…
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. It must be determined whether the plaintiff has a stronger argument and can prove their conducts where self…show more content…
The duty of care imposed by law is measured by the degree of carefulness that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation. Duty to act is a person is under a duty to everyone at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety and protection of the people and their property. However, in certain special cases, no one is required to aid another in risk.

Factual cause is when the defendant’s actions are factual causes of the harm when the harm would not have occurred without such conducts, while scope of liability is a limited liability to those harms that result from risks that made the defendant’s actions tortious. Scope of liability is divided into two parts; foreseeability, which excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the tortious act that were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent; and superseding cause, which is an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability.
The contributory negligence is the most common defense to negligence. It’s when the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for their own protection. This defense results in preventing the plaintiff from recovering any type of reward. Comparative negligence allows the damages to be divided between both the plaintiff and the defendant to their degree of

More about Intentional Tort Law

Open Document