Tort Liabilities - Case Study Example

Negligence is an example of unintentional torts. Most contemporary tort theory focuses on the legal consequences of accidents, where the relevant forms of liability are negligence and strict liability. (Theories of Tort, 2003). Wikipedia (last modified 2006) defines tort as, "In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. The origins of the modern law of torts lie in the old remedies of trespass and trespass on the case. The term itself comes from Law French and means, literally, "a wrong".

In the French language, the phrase avoir tort translates to "to be wrong". The equivalent body of law in civil law legal systems is delict. A tort is a breach of a non-contractual duty potentially owed to the entire world, imposed by law. The majority of legal claims are brought in tort." An individual's concern for his/her security of physical (bodily) status, the security of his/her financial assets and resources, tangible property, or reputation is protected by the laws of tort. If one of these interests are compromised or interfered with, compensation must be made.

The restoration of the victim, or the individual who has been harmed, to his/her status before the action of the tort is the goal of the law of torts. Wex (2005) states that, "In most countries, torts are typically divided into three broad categories: intentional torts, negligence and nuisance. Additional categories or subcategories are recognized in some countries. Some torts are strict liability torts, in that the plaintiff may recover by showing only that the wrong took place, and that the defendant committed the wrong - there is no need to show the defendant's state of mind or that the defendant breached a duty of due care.

" The main idea of tort law is not that an individually behaved badly, or wrongfully, but that a wrong was actually committed. Under tort laws, victims can spread some of the costs to others in the form of insurance. Therefore, insurance and tort laws are, in a sense, interrelated. In this day and age, lawsuits and judgements are highly possiblea and most individuals realize that they can find themselves involved in one, whether as a victim or as the accused, or guilty, party. Coleman explains the difference between fault and strict liability in tort law:Just as harm without wrong is no tort, wrongs without harms are typically not torts either.

Suppose for a moment that every motorist has a duty to exercise reasonable care in driving his or her car, and that the intended beneficiaries of the duty include all the pedestrians and other drivers who Tort Liabilities 4might be put at risk by one's failure to drive with adequate care. Now imagine two people who drive recklessly and in so doing breach the duty we suppose they have, but that one motorist causes damage whereas the other escapes injuring anyone. By hypothesis, both have breached a duty to those whose security is put at risk, and in doing so both have committed wrongs.

Only one driver harms someone as a result of the wrongs he commits and thus only he subjects himself to tort liability.So torts require both wrong and, in most cases, harm. A notable exception to the harm requirement is the case in which