Intentional Torts

Intentional torts are acts committed with the intent to harm another, or to
deliberately interfere with an individual’s rights to bodily safety, emotional
tranquility, privacy, control over property, freedom from deception, and
freedom from confinement. Intentional torts commonly include such issues as
assault and/or battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, theft, property
damage, fraud or other deception, and trespassing.
Intent is a key issue in proving an intentional tort, as the injured party, called
the Plaintiff, must prove to the court that the other party, called the
Respondent or Defendant, acted intentionally, and knew that his actions could
cause harm. In some cases, the Plaintiff need only prove that the
Defendant should have known that his actions could cause harm. Many
intentional torts may also be charged as criminal offenses.
For example:
Raymond stops by the local bar for a few drinks before he heads home after
work. After drinking four cocktails, Raymond gets into his car, and runs a stop
sign, crashing into another car, seriously injuring its occupants. Although
Raymond might argue that he didn’t know he would hurt someone, it is
expected that Raymond should have known that driving under the influence is
likely to cause harm, or to kill another person.
Because Raymond intentionally drank alcohol, knowing he planned on driving
home, and any reasonable person should know that drinking and driving
could result in harm, he has committed an intentional tort. In addition,
Raymond may be criminally charged with felony DUI.

Negligent Torts
The acts leading to claims of harm or injury in negligent torts are not
intentional. There are three specific elements that must be satisfied in a claim
of negligence:
1. The defendant must have a duty or owe a service to the plaintiff or victim
2. The defendant must have failed that duty, or violated a promise or
obligation to the plaintiff
3. The plaintiff must have suffered an actual loss, injury, or damages that
were directly caused by the plaintiff’s actions, or failure to act

Strict Liability Torts

Strict liability refers to the concept of imposing liability on a defendant, usually
a manufacturer, without proving negligent fault, or intent to cause harm. The
purpose of strict liability torts is to regulate activities that are acknowledged
as being necessary and useful to society, but which pose an abnormally high
risk of danger to the public.
Such activities may include transportation and storage of hazardous
substances, blasting, and keeping certain wild animals in captivity. The
possibility of civil lawsuits under strict liability torts keeps individuals or
corporations undertaking such dangerous acts diligent in taking every possible
precaution to keep the public safe.

Suing Under Strict Liability Tort

In a strict liability lawsuit, the law assumes that the supplier or manufacturer
of the product was aware the defect existed before the product reached the
consumer. Because of this, the plaintiff need only prove that harm or
damages occurred, and that the defendant is responsible. To successfully
bring a civil lawsuit under a strict liability tort, the following elements must be
proven:
1. The named defendant is the manufacturer of the defective product
2. The product was defective when the plaintiff purchased it
3. The defect was present when the defendant sold the product
4. The defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries or damages
5. The injuries or damages caused by the product’s defect were reasonably
foreseeable by the defendant
A plaintiff in a strict liability lawsuit may be awarded additional damages if he
can prove that the defendant knew about the defect when the product was
sold to consumers.
For example:
Amanda buys a new car from her local Zoom Auto dealership. Only three
months later, Amanda noticed her brakes felt soft, so she took her car to
dealer’s repair shop. They told her she just needed new brake pads, replaced
them, and sent Amanda on her way. A month later, while Amanda was driving
on a busy freeway, her brakes failed, and she crashed into another car.
Amanda’s car was very badly damaged, and Amanda suffered a broken arm
and a concussion.
Amanda discovers, while researching the brake problem she had been having
with her car, that this particular model has had brake problems since it was
first released for sale to the public. In digging deeper, Amanda discovers that
Zoom Auto knew the car’s brake system was defective before they sold the
cars, but determined it would be too expensive to bring them all back into the
factory to change out the brake systems.
In suing Zoom Auto, Amanda must use this information to prove:
1. Zoom Auto manufactured the defective vehicle
2. The car’s brake system was defective when she bought the car
3. The car’s brake system was defective when Zoom Auto sold the car to
Amanda
4. The brake defect caused Amanda’s injuries, as well as the severe damage
to her car
5. It was reasonably foreseeable that selling a car with a defective brake
system would cause injury to consumers
6. Zoom Auto knew about the defective brake system in this particular
model car before they sold the vehicles, yet chose to sell them anyway, in
blatant disregard of the safety of consumers

Federal Tort Claims Act

Historically, under the legal doctrine of “sovereign immunity,” people could
not sue the government, unless the government gave them permission. This
left people who, for instance, were run over by the mailman, slipped in a
puddle caused by a leaky water fountain in the passport office, or were hit by
a car driven by an FBI agent who was talking on his phone, out in the cold.
In 1946, Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, giving people the right
to sue the U.S. government in federal court for tortious acts committed by
individuals acting in their rolls as federal governmentemployees. This
permission is limited, however, maintaining cer