These can include medical bills, property damage cost of repair, and even loss of pay. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the injured for losses, but as a punishment for the wrong doer and to deter them from committing this act again, or prevent the same negligence in the future. The four elements of a negligence action that must exist for a plaintiff to win a negligence action are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages/injury. The plaintiff must prove all of these elements in order to be successful in a negligence claim. The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule.
In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
Fault is an essential element of criminal liability. It is a concept in criminal and civil law whereby the defendant is held responsible for doing something wrong. This can be through an act or omission and can be proven through the rules of causation. The implication of being found at fault is a criminal record whose consequences on the defendant personal life are serious. However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted.
PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS - AN EXPANDED JUDICIAL ROLE JAMES I. D. GHIARDI* INTRODUCTION Juries are often asked to award punitive damages with very limited guidance from the courts.1 As a result, the punitive award, in a particular instance, may be "capricious, undeserved and unrestrained." 2 When allegedly excessive punitive damage awards become the focus of judicial scrutiny, courts grapple with the propriety of reducing those awards, as well as with the question of to what extent they should be reduced.' II. A. ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE Is the Case an Appropriate One for Punitive Damages?
An unintentional tort is when a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions due to negligence (Cheeseman 2010). The consequence of torts result in damages owed to the injured party. The law specifically provides rectification to persons and entities that are harmed by the tortuous actions of others (Cheeseman 2010). Tort damages are monetary damages that are intended to compensate
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
Element Two– Breach of Duty EXPLANATION: This is an action below an acceptable level of responsibilty or inaction of this responsibility can result in a breach of that required duty and may result in lawsuits from negligence, especially in a professional capacity (Professional negligence). Under Tort, negligence will need to be proved, to do this it has to be established whether such duty exist and if the duty was
An intentional tort is any deliberate interference with a legally recognized interest, such as the rights to bodily integrity, emotional tranquility, dominion over property, seclusion from public scrutiny, and freedom from confinement or deception. Under certain circumstances the law permits individuals to intentionally pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily result in harm to others. The harm that results from such conduct is said to be outweighed by more important interests. ("Intentional torts legal definition of Intentional torts," n.d.) When a person commits a direct or indirect act which is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another is liable if the act is done with the intention of bring about a harmful offensive contact or apprehension there of the other or a third person, the contact is not consented to by the other or the others consent thereto is produced by fraud or duress, and the contact is not otherwise privileged. ("Garratt v. Dailey – Case Brief Summary," n.d.) In the case of Garratt vs. Dailey, five-year-old Brian Dailey while visiting the house of Ruth Garratt pulled a chair out from under her just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip.
The tort of negligence is a term that escapes complete definition. Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury. It includes carelessness and lack of foresight; however the significance of negligence in tort is much broader. In law, it is defined as the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” (Alderson, 1856) [Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.] [1856] in this essay I will discuss the essential ingredients that make up the tort of negligence.
INTRODUCTION In their day to day lives and interactions, human beings commit wrongs that may cause harm to others whether intentionally or unintentionally as a result, they are made to compensate the injured party or individual who has suffered a loss or injury due to their conduct. These wrongs that human beings commit against each other on a daily basis are called torts. A tort is a private or civil wrong that is independent of a contract. This essay will with references to decided cases, critically discuss the foundation of tortious liability and the purpose of law of torts. NATURE OF A TORT The nature of a tort can best be understood by making a distinction between a tort and a crime.