The party seeking an injunction typically must prove that it would suffer considerable or irreparable harm without the court's intervention. Torts are distinguishable from crimes, which are wrongs against the state or society at large.
The main purpose of criminal liability is to enforce public justice. In contrast, tort law addresses private wrongs and has a central purpose of compensating the victim rather than punishing the wrongdoer.
For example, gross negligence that endangers the lives of others may simultaneously be a tort and a crime. Some actions are punishable under both criminal law and tort law, such as battery.
In that case, ideally tort law would provide a monetary remedy to the plaintiff, while criminal law would provide rehabilitation for the defendant, while also providing a benefit to society by reforming the defendant who committed assault. Tort law is also distinct from contract law.
Although a party may have a strong breach of contract case under contract law, a breach of contract is not typically considered a tortious act. False Imprisonment. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Res ipsa loquitur negligence : P must prove 3 things:.
Inducement of contract. Category: Accidents and Injuries. Please help us improve our site! Examples include assault and battery, automobile accidents, civil rights violations, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical malpractice, personal injury, trespass, unlawful arrest, and wrongful death. The text of the law--plus references to court opinions, law review articles, and other secondary sources--are found in the U.
Code Annotated Westlaw and the U. Code Service Lexis and Nexis Uni. Reference Area, KF To identify cases applying or interpreting a specific law, consult the annotated code--such as the Revised Code of Washington Annotated --for the state.
References to cases are among the most useful annotations in these codes. Intention is distinguishable from volition. There is no right of action for any tort whether one of intention, negligence or strict liability, unless the act or conduct of the defendant was voluntary.
A person who inflicts an injury and at the time is in a condition of complete automatism, will not be held liable under the principles of tort law. The onus is on the defendant to show that the act or omission complained of was involuntary.
It is no defence to a voluntary, wrongful act or omission that the defendant did not appreciate its natural consequences. Motive is distinct from intention. Except in cases of malicious prosecution, injurious falsehood, abuse of process, maintenance, abuse of public office and conspiracy, the motive for a tortious act is irrelevant. An act that is legal in itself is not made illegal because the motive of the individual committing the act is bad, that is, done with the intent to injure or to effect some ulterior purpose.
If conduct is tortious, a good motive will not excuse the defendant. If conduct is lawful apart from the motive, a bad motive will not make the defendant liable. A bad intent may render illegal an act done in combination with others which would have been legal if committed by one person only. A bad or wrongful motive will defeat the defence of privilege in an action for defamation.
Mistake refers to the situation where the defendant intends to produce a particular result but mistakenly believes that his or her conduct is innocent.
The mistake may be one of fact or law. Where the defendant is in full possession of all facts of the situation giving rise to the injury, failure to apprehend the tortious character of his or her conduct is a mistake of law. A defendant acting under a mistake of law is not excused from liability. The defendant who mistakenly but honestly and reasonably believes in a state of facts which, if true, would provide a complete justification for his or her conduct is acting under a mistake of facts.
The relevance of mistake of fact on all intentional torts is uncertain, but it is generally no defence to intentional interference with property interests. No person can be held liable in tort unless the act or omission with which he or she is charged was a breach of a duty owing by that person to the plaintiff or to a class to which the plaintiff belongs, and the plaintiff has suffered individual damage therefrom.
A relationship based on proximity or reliance may exist between the plaintiff and defendant, giving rise to an actionable duty of care. Injury that is recognized as actionable under the law may be caused by the direct act of the defendant, the indirect or consequential act of the defendant, the omission or failure of the defendant to act or by a general legal responsibility imposed upon the defendant because she or he has a special relationship to the individual who actually caused the injury.
For instance, an employer may be vicariously responsible for the act of an employee, a principal for that of an agent or a publisher for the defamatory statement of a writer. Interests protected by the law of torts can be classified as injury to the person, injury to the property of the plaintiff and injury to the financial interests of the plaintiff.
For instance, in defamation and in battery, the law presumes that injury has occurred from the act that constitutes the cause of action itself. The plaintiff must establish facts from which the judge or jury may reasonably draw the inference that the wrongful act of the defendant was the probable cause of injury. When a plaintiff has been injured by one of two defendants, in circumstances where both defendants have acted carelessly, and the effect of the carelessness has been to make it impossible for the plaintiff to show which one of the defendants actually caused the injuries, both defendants should be found liable unless they can exculpate themselves.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is expired and is no longer a separate component of negligence actions. Liability may be imposed upon a defendant for both a tortious wrong and breach of contract.
0コメント