Negligence is a legal concept in the common law legal systems usually used to achieve compensation for injuries (not accidents). Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive An intentional tort is a category of Torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the Tortfeasor. For other uses of the term "Assault" please see Assault (disambiguation. At Common law, battery is the Tort of intentionally (or in Australia, negligently and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive False imprisonment is a Tort, and possibly a Crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority Intentional infliction of emotional distress ( IIED) is a Tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress Consent as a term of jurisprudence is a possible defence (an Excuse or justification against civil or criminal liability In Tort common law the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another The right of self-defense (also called alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their Trespass (Fr trespas a crime properly a stepping across from Lat In Law, conversion is an intentional Tort to Personal property (same as Chattel) where defendant's unjustified willful interference with the In Tort law, detinue is an action for the wrongful detention of goods Replevin is an Anglo - French Law term It is the noun form of the verb "replevy" (from Old French "replevir" derived from "plevir" Trover is a form of lawsuit in Common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property Privacy law is the area of law concerning the protection and preservation of the Privacy rights of individuals The Tort of breach of confidence, is a Common law tort that protects private information that is conveyed in confidence Abuse of process is a Common law intentional Tort. It is to be distinguished from Malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the Malicious prosecution is a Common law intentional Tort, while like the tort of Abuse of process, its elements include (1 intentionally (and At Common law, alienation of affections is a Tort action brought by a deserted spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for the failure of the Marriage Economic torts are Torts that provide the Common law rules on liability for the infliction of Pure economic loss, such as interference with economic or business In the broadest sense a fraud is a Deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual Tortious interference, in the Common law of Tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the Plaintiff 's Contractual or other business relationships A civil conspiracy or Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective Restraint of trade is a Common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business Nuisance (through Fr noisance nuisance from Lat nocere to hurt is a Common law Tort. For the law of Tort, see Nuisance In the English Criminal law, public nuisance is a class of Common law offence Rylands v Fletcher ( 1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a landmark English legal case in which the Court of the Exchequer Chamber first applied the doctrine In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a reasonable Standard of care while performing any acts For the English law, see Standard of care in English law. In Tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution For English law, see Causation in English law In the Law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning "the thing itself speaks" but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself In the United States, the calculus of negligence, or "Hand rule" is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether The rescue doctrine of the Law of Torts holds that if a Tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger the tortfeasor is A duty to rescue is a concept in Tort law that arises in a narrow number of cases describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come The Tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States Jurisdictions Negligence in employment encompasses several causes of action in Tort law which arise where an Employer is held liable for Negligence of an Employee Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in Tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor is held liable for Negligence because they negligently provided In Law, malpractice is a type of negligence in which the Misfeasance, Malfeasance or Nonfeasance of a Professional, under a duty This article is about the Common law concept of a trespasser for the computer game see Jurassic Park Trespasser In the Law of This article is about the Common law concept of a licensee see here for information on Licenses A licensee is a term used In the Law of Torts an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public or one who's invited to the land Attractive nuisance redirects here For the album see Attractive Nuisance. Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers distributors suppliers retailers and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries An ultrahazardous activity in the Common law of Torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held Strictly liable In the United States, comparative negligence is a partial defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon Contributory negligence is a Common law defense to a claim based on negligence an action in Tort. The last clear chance is a doctrine in the Law of Torts that is employed in Contributory negligence jurisdictions The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a Legal doctrine used in both Tort law and Criminal law that holds an individual liable This article is about vicarious liability in private litigation for vicarious liability in criminal law see Vicarious liability (criminal. Volenti non fit injuria ( Latin: "to a willing person no injury is done" or "no injury is done to a person who consents" is a Common law In civil law, especially Contract law, ex turpi causa non oritur actio is the doctrine that an action may not be founded on illegality In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful An injunction is an Equitable remedy in the form of a Court order, whereby a party is required to do or interact with in certain ways all right or to refrain from Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law Property law is the area of Law that governs the various forms of Ownership in Real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions In Common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the Testator) regulates the rights of others over his or her Property The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of Law which governs the management of personal affairs and the Disposition of Property of The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e Law is a system of rules enforced through a set of Institutions used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience politics economics and society Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties Delict is a concept of civil law in which a willful wrong or an act of negligence gives rise to a legal obligation between parties even though there has been no contract Civil law, as opposed to Criminal law, refers to that branch of Law dealing with disputes between Individuals and/or Organizations, in which However, the concept is sometimes used in criminal law as well. The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential "Negligence" is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Behavior or behaviour (see spelling differences) refers to the actions or Reactions of an object or Organism, usually The reasonable person standard is often used legal term that originated in the development of the Common law. As commonly used, individual refers to a Person or to any specific object in a collection Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm. In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful Proving a case for neligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Injury or bodily injury is Damage or Harm caused to the Structure or function of the Body caused by an outside agent or Loss of consortium is a term used in the Law of Torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a Family relationship due to injuries caused by Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proved in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.
Contents |
Elements of negligence claims
Negligence suits have historically been analyzed in stages, called elements, similar to the analysis of crimes. An element of a crime (collectively called elements of crime) is a basic set of Common law principles regarding Criminal liability that with few exceptions Common law jurisdictions may differ slightly in the exact classification of the elements of negligence, but the elements that must be established in every negligence case are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a reasonable Standard of care while performing any acts Each are defined and explained in greater detail in the paragraphs below. Negligence can be conceived of as having just three elements - conduct, causation and damages. More often, it is said to have four (duty, breach, causation and pecuniary damages) or five (duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages). Each would be correct, depending on how much specificty someone is seeking. "The broad agreement on the conceptual model," writes Professor Robertson of the University of Texas, "entails recognition that the five elements are best defined with care and kept separate. But in practice," he goes on to warn, "several varieties of confusion or conceptual mistakes have sometimes occurred. "[1]
Procedure in the United States
The plaintiff must prove each element to win his case. A plaintiff ( Π in Legal shorthand) also known as a claimant or complainant, is the party who initiates a Lawsuit Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be by way of a demurrer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment. A demurrer is a legal Pleading filed by a party defending against claims or defenses in a lawsuit For the simplification and shortening of a longer text see Summary. The ability to resolve a negligence case without trial is very important to defendants. Without the specific limits provided by the four elements, any plaintiff could claim any defendant was responsible for any loss, and subject him to a costly trial. [2].
The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the finder of fact to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable, after the trial. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy. The court can find that regardless of the disputed facts, if any, the case can be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts, because two people in the position of the plaintiff and defendant simply cannot be legally responsible to one another for negligent injury.
On appeal, the court reviewing a decision in a negligence case will analyze in terms of at least one of these elements, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal. For example, if it is an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the reviewing court will look to see that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review de novo whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his case. In Law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial " by a different tribunal ( de novo is a Latin expression meaning 'afresh' 'anew'
Duty of care
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson[3] [1932] illustrates the law of negligence, laying the foundations of the fault principle around the Commonwealth. In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a reasonable Standard of care while performing any acts Donoghue (or M’Alister v Stevenson ( [1932] AC 562 1932 SC (H Plaintiff Ms. Donoghue drank ginger beer given to her by a friend, who bought it from a shop. The beer was supplied by a manufacturer under a certain Mr. Stevenson of Scotland. While drinking the drink, Ms. Donoghue discovered the remains of an allegedly decomposed snail. The word snail is a Common name that can be used for almost all members of the Molluscan class Gastropoda which have coiled shells in the She then sued Mr. Stevenson, though there was no relationship of contract, as the friend had made the payment . As there was no contract the doctrine of privity prevented a direct action against the manufacturer, Mr David Stevenson. A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law The doctrine of privity in Contract law provides that a Contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties In his ruling, justice Lord MacMillan presiding over the case defined a new category of tort, (which is really not based on negligence but on what is now known as the "implied warranty of fitness of a product" in a completely different category of tort--"products liability") because it was analogous to previous cases about people hurting each other. Lord Atkin interpreted the biblical passages to 'love thy neighbour,' as the legal requirement to 'not harm thy neighbour. James Richard Atkin Baron Atkin ( November 28, 1867 - June 25, 1944) was a Lawyer and Judge of Australian ' He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question. " Reasonably foreseeable harm must be compensated. This is the first principle of negligence. In England the more recent case of Caparo v. Dickman [1990] introduced a 'threefold test' for a duty of care. Caparo Industries v Dickman 2 AC 605 is currently the leading case on the test for the Duty of care in Negligence in the English law of Tort Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.
Breach of duty
- See also: Breach of duty in English law
Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective) exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any reasonable person in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty.
Breach of duty is not restricted to professionals or persons under written or oral contract; we all have a duty to take reasonable care for others and their property. Anyone who unreasonably runs a risk that results in harm to others or their property, breaches their duty of reasonable care. An example is the case of Bolton v. Stone[4] which occurred in the English countryside, where cricket balls were seldom hit far enough to endanger to local passersby, but one day one was. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 [1951] 1 All ER 1078 is a leading House of Lords case in the Tort of Negligence, establishing that It hit Mrs. Bolton on the head, who was walking nearby. Although she was hurt, the court said she did not have a legitimate claim. 'Reasonable risk' cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. As Lord Denning said in Roe v. Minister of Health[5], the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles. In the English law of Tort, Roe v Minister of Health 2 AER 131 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the medical professionals in a case faulting them for using contaminated medical jars because the scientific standards of the time indicated a low possibility of medical jar contamination. Even if some were harmed, the professionals took reasonable care for risk to their patients.
For the rule in the U. S. , see: Calculus of negligence
Factual causation
For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. In the United States, the calculus of negligence, or "Hand rule" is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred but for, or without, my breach of duty. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.
Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business. Insurance, in Law and Economics, is a form of Risk management primarily used to hedge against the Risk of a contingent loss
- See also: Causation in English law and Breaking the chain
Legal causation or remoteness
Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of Cardozo, J., "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. Benjamin Nathan Cardozo ( May 24, 1870 &ndash July 9, 1938) was a well-known American Lawyer and Jurist, remembered " [6] It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U. For English law, see Causation in English law In the Law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury S. ) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. Note that a 'proximate cause' in U. S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible?
For instance, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.[7] the judge decided that the defendant, a railway was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co, 162 NE 99 (NY 1928 was a decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in the New York The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. Train Conductor (North America The Conductor is the railway employee charged with the management of a freight passenger or various other types of Train, and is The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passener or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell. [8] Because she was hurt, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence. [9].
The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the court agreed, however, it was divided when it came time to explain the reason why the defendant was not liable. One view was that the defendant owed no duty of care to the defendant, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. This was the view advanced by Judge Cardozo. The other view was that the defendant owed a duty to the defendant, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligenctly. This was the view advanced by Judge Andrews. According to Andrews, however, the defendant still should not be liable because, despite having owed a duty, and breached it, the breach was not the proximate cause of the injury.
This difference of opinion in the role of remoteness continues to trouble American courts. Courts follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view. However, some courts follow the position put forth by Judge Andrews. In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.
Remoteness takes another form, seen in the Wagon Mound No. 2[10]. Overseas Tankship (UK Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (1966 [1966] 2 All ER 709 [1967] 1 AC 617 [1966] 3 WLR 498 (PC - also known as Wagon Mound No The Wagon Mound was a ship in Sydney harbour. Sydney (ˈsɪdniː is the most populous city in Australia, with a Metropolitan area population of approximately 4 The Wagon Mound was a ship which leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf. The UK House of Lords determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner. In Australia, the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of Jaensch v. Coffey. [11] The wife of a policeman, Mrs Jaensch suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the accident. The court upheld in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it also required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the accident. Here there was sufficient causal proximity.
Damage
Even though there is breach of duty, and the cause of some injury to the defendant, a plaintiff may not recover for injury unless he can prove that the defendant's breach caused a pecuniary injury. This should not be mistaken with the requirements that a plaintiff prove harm to recover for it. As a general rule, a plaintiff can only recover legal remedy to the point that he proves that he suffered a loss. It means something more that pecuniary loss is a necessary element of the plaintiff's case in negligence. When damages are not a necessary element, a plaintiff can win his case without showing that he suffered any loss; he would be entitled to Nominal damages and any other damages according to proof. In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful Negligence is different in that the plaintiff must prove his loss, and a particular kind of loss, to recover anything. In some cases, a defendant may not dispute the loss, but the requirement is significant in cases where a defendant cannot deny his negligence, but the plaintiff suffered no loss as a result. If the plaintiff can prove pecuniary loss, then he can also obtain damages for non-pecuniary injuries, such as emotional distress.
The pecuniary loss requirement can be shown in a number of ways. A plaintiff who is physically injured by allegedly negligent conduct may show that he had to pay a medical bill. If his property is damaged, he could show the income lost because he could not use it, the cost to repair it (although he could only recover for one of these things). For example, if a plaintiff is in a car accident, he may have evidence of how much it cost for a professional to repair the car.
The damage may be physical (e. g. personal injury), economic (e. A personal injury occurs when a Person has suffered some form of Injury, either physical or psychological as the result of an Accident or Medical g. pure financial loss), or both (e. g. financial loss of earnings consequent on a personal injury), reputational (e. g. in a defamation case), or in relationships where a family may have lost a wage earner through a negligent act. In English law, at least, the right to claim for purely economic loss is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services. In Law, economic loss refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person such as can only be seen in Balance sheets rather than physical injury to the person
Emotional distress has been recognized as compensable in the case of negligence. The Tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States Jurisdictions The general rule was that emotional distress damages had to be parasitic. That is, the plaintiff could recover for emotional distress caused by injury, burt only if it accompanied a physical or pecuniary injury. A plaintiff who came to court having suffered only emotional distress and no pecuniary loss would not win a suit for negligence. However, a modern trend allows recovery for a plaintiff to recover for negligence causing him purely emotional distress under certain circumstances. The state courts of California allowed recovery for emotional distress alone — even in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiff, when the defendant physically injures a relative of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff witnesses it. California ( is a US state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean. [12]
Damages
Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (the Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful The Latin maxim restitutio in integrum (restoration to original condition is one of the primary guiding principles behind the awarding of Damages in Common law Latin ( lingua Latīna, laˈtiːna is an Italic language, historically spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome. Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Culpability descends from the Latin concept of fault ( Culpa) which is still found today in the phrase Mea culpa (literally "my Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim. But, particularly in the U. S. , punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to compensatory damages to reflect the egregious nature of the defendant's conduct, e. Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are Damages not awarded in order to compensate the Plaintiff, but in order g. that the defendant was malicious or callously indifferent.
One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a defendant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "reasonable person". The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury) be damaged by the breach of duty. Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a defendant is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort.
Damages are, in general, compensatory and not punitive in nature. This means that the amount paid matches the plaintiff/claimant's actual loss (in cases involving physical injury, the amount awarded should aim to compensate for the pain and suffering). It is not the court's intention to punish the defendant. The award should be sufficient so as to put the plaintiff/claimant back in the position he or she was before the tort was committed and no more, because otherwise the plaintiff/claimant would actually profit from the tort. The award of damages may include the following heads of damage:
- Special damages - losses suffered from the date of the tort up until the date of trial and which can be precisely quantified in monetary terms. In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful
- General damages - losses that cannot be quantified exactly in monetary terms (the actual pain, suffering, and loss of amenity caused by the negligent act), as well as expected future losses from the date of trial (e. In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful g. continuing pain and suffering, and loss of earnings). Where the plaintiff/claimant proves only negligible loss or damage, or the court is unable to quantify the losses, the court may award nominal damages. In Law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a Claimant (England Pursuer (Scotland or Plaintiff (US following a successful
- Punitive damages - are awards of amounts greater than those needed to compensate the victim and are intended to deter intentional, usually malicious, wrongdoing. Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are Damages not awarded in order to compensate the Plaintiff, but in order They are not available where only negligence has been proved.
See also
- Negligence in English Law
- Carelessness
- Criminal negligence
- Medical negligence
- Malpractice
- Mens rea
- Intentionality
Footnotes
- ^ Deakin, Tort Law, 218
- ^ The breadth of negligence is often associated with an "in terrorem effect"
- ^ Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532
- ^ Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A. Tort law in England and Wales concerns civil wrongs as distinguished from criminal wrongs. Carelessness is lack of concern about the consequences of an action and by extension the behavior that results from that lack of concern In the Criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" element required Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a Health care provider in which care provided deviates from accepted standards of practice In Law, malpractice is a type of negligence in which the Misfeasance, Malfeasance or Nonfeasance of a Professional, under a duty In Criminal law, mens rea the Latin term for "guilty mind" is usually one of the necessary elements of a Crime. The term intentionality is often simplistically summarised as "aboutness" In terrorem, Latin for "in to frighten" is a legal term used to describe a warning usually one given in hope of compelling someone to act without resorting to a Donoghue (or M’Alister v Stevenson ( [1932] AC 562 1932 SC (H Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 [1951] 1 All ER 1078 is a leading House of Lords case in the Tort of Negligence, establishing that C. 850
- ^ Roe v Minister of Health (1954) 2 AER 131
- ^ Ultramares Corp. In the English law of Tort, Roe v Minister of Health 2 AER 131 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has v. Touche(1931) 255 N. Y. 170, 174 N. E. 441
- ^ Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. (1928) 162 N. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co, 162 NE 99 (NY 1928 was a decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest state court in the New York E. 99
- ^ Interestingly, the plaintiff's physical injuries were minor and more likely caused by a stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. These details have not, however, stopped the case from becoming the source of extensive debate in American tort law.
- ^ She could have sued the man or the conductor himself, but they did not have as much money as the company. Often, in litigation, where two defendants are equally liable but one is more able to satisfy a judgment, he will be the preferred defendant and is referred to as the "deep pocket. "
- ^ Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty [1966] 2 All E. R. 709
- ^ Jaensch v. Coffee (1984) 155 CLR 578
- ^ See Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968) and Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980).
References
- Deakin, Simon; Angus Johnston; Basil Markesinis (2003). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199257116.
External links
- Perry, Ronen, "Relational Economic Loss: An Integrated Economic Justification for the Exclusionary Rule", Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 711-88, Spring 2004
- Negligence - Encyclopedic Article
Dictionary
negligence
-noun
- The state of being negligent
- (law) (singulare tantum) The tort whereby a duty of reasonable care was breached, causing damage: any conduct short of intentional or reckless action that falls below the legal standard for preventing unreasonable injury.
- (law) (uncountable) The breach of a duty of care: the failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation.
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic