Define: Tort Law

Tort law is a branch of civil law that deals with legal wrongs or injuries caused by one party to another, resulting in harm or loss. It provides remedies for individuals who have been wronged by the actions, negligence, or misconduct of others. Tort law covers a wide range of wrongful acts, including negligence, intentional harm, defamation, invasion of privacy, and strict liability. The primary goals of tort law are to compensate injured parties for their losses, deter wrongful conduct, and provide a mechanism for resolving disputes in a fair and equitable manner. Tort cases are typically brought by individuals seeking damages or other forms of relief for injuries suffered, and they may be heard in civil courts. Examples of tort cases include personal injury claims, medical malpractice suits, product liability cases, and premises liability lawsuits. Tort law is an important component of the legal system, as it helps to protect individuals’ rights, promote accountability, and ensure justice for those who have been wronged.

A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others. The person who sustains an injury or suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the defendant or tortfeasor.

Overview

The law of torts is derived from a combination of common law principles and legislative enactments. It’s always the case. Unlike actions for breach of contract, tort actions are not dependent upon an agreement between the parties to a lawsuit. Unlike criminal prosecutions, which are brought by the government, tort actions are brought by private citizens. Remedies for tortious acts include money damages and injunctions (court orders compelling or forbidding particular conduct). Tortfeasors are subject to neither fine nor incarceration in civil court.

Elements Of A Tort

Three elements must be established in every tort action. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behaviour accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach.

History Of Tort Law

The word tort comes from the Latin term torquere, which means “twisted or wrong.” The English common law recognised no separate legal action in tort. Instead, the British legal system afforded litigants two central avenues of redress: trespass for direct injuries and actions “on the case” for indirect injuries. Gradually, the common law recognised other civil actions, including defamation, libel, and slander. Most of the American colonies adopted the English common law in the eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century, the first U.S. legal treatises were published, in which a portion of the common law was synthesised under the heading of torts.

Over the last century, tort law has touched on nearly every aspect of life in the United States. In economic affairs, tort law provides remedies for businesses that are harmed by the unfair and deceptive trade practices of a competitor. In the workplace, tort law protects employees from the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Tort law also helps regulate the environment, providing remedies against both individuals and businesses that pollute the air, land, and water to such an extent that it amounts to a nuisance.

Sometimes tort law governs life’s most intimate relations, as when individuals are held liable for knowingly transmitting communicable diseases to their sexual partners. When a loved one is killed by a tortious act, surviving family members may bring a wrongful death action to recover the pecuniary loss. Tort law also governs a wide array of behaviours in less intimate settings, including the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways.

Objectives Of Tort Law

The law of torts serves four objectives. First, it seeks to compensate victims for injuries suffered by the culpable action or inaction of others. Second, it seeks to shift the cost of such injuries to the person or persons who are legally responsible for inflicting them. Third, it seeks to discourage injurious, careless, and risky behaviour in the future. Fourth, it seeks to vindicate legal rights and interests that have been compromised, diminished, or emasculated. In theory, these objectives are served when tort liability is imposed on tortfeasors for intentional wrongdoing, negligence, and ultrahazardous activities.

Intentional Torts

An intentional tort is any deliberate interference with a legally recognised interest, such as the rights to bodily integrity, emotional tranquilly, dominion over property, seclusion from public scrutiny, and freedom from confinement or deception. These interests are violated by the intentional torts of assault, battery, trespass, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, conversion, misrepresentation, and fraud. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behaviour, sometimes called willful and wanton behaviour, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.

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. Self-preservation is one such interest and is embodied in the right to self-defence. Individuals may exert sufficient force in self-defence

to repel an imminent threat of bodily harm. Deadly force may only be used by people who reasonably believe that their lives are endangered and for whom there are no reasonable means of escape. Reasonable force, but not deadly force, may be employed in the defence of property.

Consent is a defence to virtually every intentional tort. The law will not compensate people who knowingly allow someone to injure them. However, consent must be given freely and voluntarily to be effective. Consent induced by coercion, duress, undue influence, or chicanery is not legally effective. Nor is consent legally effective when given by an incompetent person. Consent to intentional torts involving grievous bodily harm is also deemed ineffective in a number of jurisdictions.

Negligence

Most injuries that result from tortious behaviour are the product of negligence, not intentional wrongdoing. Negligence is the term used by tort law to characterise behaviour that creates unreasonable risks of harm to persons and property. A person acts negligently when his behaviour departs from the conduct ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. In general, the law requires jurors to use their common sense and life experience in determining the proper degree of care and vigilance with which people must lead their lives to avoid imperilling the safety of others.

Not every accident-producing injury gives rise to liability for negligence. Some accidents cannot be avoided even with the exercise of reasonable care. An accident that results from a defendant’s sudden and unexpected physical ailments, such as a seizure or a blackout, generally relieves the defendant of liability for harm caused during his period of unconsciousness. However, defendants who have reason to know of such medical problems are expected to take reasonable precautions against the risks the problems create. In some jurisdictions, unavoidable accidents are called acts of God.

Assumption of risk is another defence to negligence actions. This defence prevents plaintiffs from recovering for injuries sustained as a result of a relationship or transaction they entered with full knowledge and acceptance of the risks commonly associated with such undertakings. Assumed risks include most of those encountered by spectators attending sporting events. However, the law will not assume that individuals accept the risk of intentionally inflicted harm or damage, such as injuries resulting from assault and battery.

Strict Liability

In some cases, tort law imposes liability on defendants who are neither negligent nor guilty of intentional wrongdoing. Known as strict liability, or liability without fault, this branch of torts seeks to regulate those activities that are useful and necessary but that create abnormally dangerous risks to society. These activities include blasting, transporting hazardous materials, storing dangerous substances, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity.

A distinction is sometimes drawn between moral fault and legal fault. Persons who negligently or intentionally cause injury to others are often considered morally blameworthy for having failed to live up to a minimal threshold of human conduct. On the other hand, legal fault is more of an artificial code of conduct that the government has established for the sake of society’s protection.

Persons who engage in ultrahazardous activities may be morally blameless because no amount of care or diligence can make their activities safe for society. However, such persons will nonetheless be held legally responsible for harm that results from their activities as a means of shifting the costs of injury from potential victims to tortfeasors. As a matter of social policy, then, individuals and entities that engage in abnormally dangerous activities for profit must be willing to ensure the safety of others as a price of doing business.

Consumers who have suffered harm as a result of poorly-made products also rely on strict liability. Under the doctrine of strict product liability, a manufacturer must guarantee that its goods are suitable for their intended use when they are placed on the market for public consumption. The law of torts will hold manufacturers strictly liable for any injuries that result from placing unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, without regard to the amount of care exercised in preparing the product for sale and distribution and without regard to whether the consumer purchased the product from, or entered into a contractual relationship with, the manufacturer.

Causation

Causation is an element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and intentional wrongs. Causation has two prongs. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another. In its simplest form, evidence demonstrating that a tortfeasor’s act or omission was a necessary precursor to the plaintiff’s injury establishes cause in fact. Courts analyse this issue by determining whether the plaintiff’s injury would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct. If an injury would have occurred independent of the defendant’s conduct, cause in fact has not been established, and no tort has been committed. When multiple factors have led to a particular injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the tortfeasor’s action played a substantial role in causing the injury.

Second, plaintiffs must establish that a particular tort was the proximate cause of an injury before liability will be imposed. The term proximate cause is somewhat misleading because it has little to do with proximity or causation. By limiting the scope of liability to injuries that have a reasonable connection to the risk that the defendant created,. The proximate cause is evaluated in terms of foreseeability. If the defendant should have foreseen the tortious injury, he or she will be held liable for the resulting loss. If a given risk could not have been reasonably anticipated, the proximate cause has not been established, and liability will not be imposed.

When duty, breach, and proximate cause have been established in a tort action, the plaintiff may recover damages for the pecuniary losses sustained. The type of injury sustained and the nature of the tort are what determine the amount of damages. Damages for tortious acts generally fall into one of four categories: damages for injury to a person, damages for injury to personal property, damages for injury to real property, and punitive damages.

Damages

Personal injury tort victims must normally recover all their damages—past, present, and future—during a single lawsuit. Damages may be recovered for physical, psychological, and emotional injuries. Specifically, these injuries may include permanent disability, pain and suffering, disfigurement, humiliation, embarrassment, distress, impairment of earning capacity, lost wages or profits, medical costs, and out-of-pocket expenses. Courts typically rely on expert testimony to translate such losses into dollar figures.

Plaintiffs suffering damage to personal property must choose between two methods of recovery. First, plaintiffs may elect to recover the difference between the value of the property before the tort and the value of the property after it. Second, plaintiffs may elect to recover the reasonable costs of repair for damaged personal property. The replacement value of the damaged property, on the other hand, serves as a measure of damages in cases where the damage is irreparable or economically impractical to repair. Persons who are temporarily deprived of personal property may sue to recover the rental value of the property for the period of deprivation.

Damages for injury to real property may be measured by the difference in the property’s value before and after the tort. Alternatively, plaintiffs may elect to recover the reasonable costs of restoring the property to its original condition. In either case, plaintiffs may also recover the rental value of their property if its use and enjoyment have been interrupted by tortious behaviour. Mental, emotional, and physical harm that is sustained in the process of a tortious injury to real property is compensable as well.

Punitive damages, called exemplary damages in some jurisdictions, are recoverable against tortfeasors whose injurious conduct is sufficiently egregious. Although punitive damages are typically awarded for injuries suffered from intentional torts, they can also be awarded against tortfeasors who act with reckless indifference to the safety of others. Because one purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant, plaintiffs may introduce evidence regarding a tortfeasor’s wealth to allow the jury to better assess the amount of damages necessary for punishment. Such evidence is normally deemed irrelevant or prejudicial in almost every other type of damage claim.

In addition to damages for past tortious conduct, plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief to prevent future harm. Manufacturing plants that emit smoke that pollutes the air, companies that discharge chemicals that poison the water, and factories that store chemicals that migrate through the soil create risks of injury that are likely to recur over time. In tort law, operations that produce recurring injuries like these are called nuisances. If the harmfulness of such operations outweighs their usefulness, plaintiffs may successfully obtain a court order enjoining or restraining them.

Immunity

Certain individuals and entities are granted immunity from both damage awards and assessments of liability in tort. An immunity is a defence to a legal action where public policy demands special protection for an entity or a class of persons participating in a particular field or activity. Historically, immunity from tort litigation has been granted to government units, public officials, charities, educational institutions, spouses, parents, and children.

Government immunity, also known as sovereign immunity, insulates federal, state, and local governments from liability for torts that an employee commits within the scope of his or her official duties. Public policy, as reflected by legislation, common-law precedent, and popular opinion, has required courts to protect the government from unnecessary disruptions that invariably result from civil litigation. Similarly, educational institutions generally have been immunised from tort actions to protect students and faculty from distraction.

In a number of states, tortfeasors have been given immunity from liability if they are related to the victim as husband or wife, or parent or child. These states came to the conclusion that the adversarial nature of tort litigation shouldn’t be traumatising to family harmony. Charities and other philanthropic organisations have been given qualified immunity from tort liability as well. This immunity is based on the fear that donors would stop giving money to charities if the funds were used to pay tort claims.

Over the last quarter-century, nearly every jurisdiction has curtailed tort immunity in some fashion. Several jurisdictions have abolished tort immunity for entire groups and entities. The movement to restrict tort immunity has been based in part on the rule of law, which requires all persons, organisations, and government officials to be treated equally under the law. Despite the efforts of this movement, tort immunity persists in various forms at the federal, state, and local levels.

Tort Reform Initiatives

The damages recovered by those injured as a result of a tortious act of another are often paid for by insurance companies. This is particularly true in medical malpractice cases. Doctors must pay significant medical liability insurance premiums in order to stay in business. When a doctor commits malpractice, the patient may receive an award of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. As insurance companies continue to pay these hefty awards, the rates for insurance premiums often rise sharply.

The medical profession and medical liability insurance companies have engaged in a nationwide campaign to place limitations on the amount of damages that a patient who has been subjected to medical malpractice can recover. Under the guise of “tort reform,” supporters advocate placing limitations on the recovery of noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering and loss of consortium. In 1975, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, which limits the recovery of noneconomic damages to $250,000 and restricts the amount of fees that may be recovered by lawyers. California’s law has served as a model for six other states that have adopted similar tort reform bills. Other state legislatures have considered similar tort reform initiatives.

President George W. Bush has advocated federal legislation that would place a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages at the national level. According to Bush, the federal government spends $28 billion per year on medical liability insurance costs and defensive medical costs. Opponents of such a measure claim that many of the problems associated with insurance costs are the result of poor business practices by insurance companies. Opponents also maintain that capping damages for pain and suffering restricts the ability of patients to recover only an arbitrary amount from a negligent doctor. Supporters of the initiative claim that capping damages will lower medical costs for the general population.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 9th April, 2024.