TORT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
(CAPUT PRIMUM)

RMT 551 – LAW IN PROJECT

MANAGEMENT

armanabdulrazak
 • The dictionary’s definition of the word tort is
WHAT IS “any wrongful act that leads to legal liability”. It
also means an act that infringes on one’s rights
TORT? other than when it’s under a contract.
• Per common legal jurisdictions, a tort is
considered civil wrongdoing that is expected to
or believed to have caused the claimant harm
or loss. In the end, the act results in
legal liabilities leveled against the wrongdoer.
 • Tort law is the area of the law that covers most
WHAT IS civil suits. Generally, every claim that arises in civil
court, with the exception of contractual disputes,
TORT LAW? falls under tort law. The concept of this area of law
is to redress a wrong done to a person and
provide relief from the wrongful acts of others,
usually by awarding monetary damages as
compensation. The original intent of tort is to
provide full compensation for proved harms.
 • Tort law is that branch of the law that deals with
POINTS TO civil law, including lawsuits but excluding issues

REMEMBER involving contracts.

• Tort law is considered to be a form of restorative
ABOUT justice since it seeks to remedy losses or injury
with monetary compensation.
TORT • In general tort law falls into three categories:
those complaints dealing with negligence;
intentional harm; and unintentional but non-
negligent acts known as strict liability.
 • The main similarity is that both contract and tort
TORT v laws are meant to deal with any breaches of
CONTRACT duties by a party. The two laws usually apply if
the breaches result in losses or injuries to any
LAW of the parties involved.

(SIMILARITIES) • Also, each branch of law seeks to get justice to

the victim who suffers the damages in question.
TORT v • Meaning of Contract and Tort
• A contract means a promise or set of
CONTRACT LAW promises that the law can or will enforce if
(DIFFERENCES) any eventuality arises while tort means a
collection of legal remedies that entitle an
affected party to recover from losses,
injuries, or damages. Tort covers such
damages that may have been as a result of
omissions, actions, or statements made by
another party in such a way that it was
regarded as a breach of their duty or
obligation.
TORT v • Rights
CONTRACT LAW • In contract law, the obligations, as well as
rights, are as a result of the acts of
(DIFFERENCES) agreement among the parties involved
while in tort, the court usually creates the
obligations and rights and applies the
common law.
TORT v • Duties
• In contract law, the parties chiefly determine
CONTRACT LAW the duties while in tort, the law determines
(DIFFERENCES) the duties. This means that the parties can
decide to be or not be bound under the
contract, but they cannot choose whether
they will be bound under the law or not.
• Also, duties in contract are commonly
towards definite or specific persons while
duties in tort are generally owed to persons
or community at large.
TORT v • Minors
• A minor can be made liable for their torts,
CONTRACT LAW but they are limited in liability when it comes
(DIFFERENCES) to contract. This means the minor can be
sued under torts and the damages will be
paid from their property.
TORT v • Privity
• In tort, privity does not exist nor is it needed
CONTRACT LAW because harm is always done against the
(DIFFERENCES) injured party’s will. On the contract’s side,
privity must exist which means the parties
involved have to be legally bound to each
other.
TORT v • Motive
• Tort law takes the motive into consideration
CONTRACT LAW while contract law takes the motive of the
(DIFFERENCES) breach to be immaterial.
TORT v • Damages
• Tort laws award damages as either real,
CONTRACT LAW contemptuous, or exemplary unliquidated
(DIFFERENCES) while contract laws award liquidated
damages. Contract law rarely awards
exemplary damages.
TORT v • Limitation Period
• In torts, the limitation period will run from
CONTRACT LAW the time the damage was done while in
(DIFFERENCES) contract, the period runs from the day date
the contract was breached.
TORT v
CONTRACT
A COMPARISON
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• There are many remedies which are available to the injured person and the most common remedy is the
award of damages. Damages is that amount of money which the injured person gets from the person
who caused injury to him.
• In a claim for damages, the person should have suffered a legal injury because in case no legal injury
happens a person cannot claim damages even if he suffered an actual loss. It can be understood with the
help of these maxims:
• Injuria sine damno, it means that there is a legal injury without any actual damage. Here the legal right
of an individual is violated therefore he has a right to go to the court to enforce such right.
• Damnum sine injuria, it means that there is actual damage but no legal injury and thus the person
cannot go to the court to enforce his right because he has no such right in the absence of a legal injury.
• Damages can be provided in the cases of injuria sine damno but not in a case of damnum sine injuria.
• Another important point about ‘damages’ is that they are different from ‘damage’ even though they both
sound the same they have a different meaning. Damage is the loss suffered by the person due to the
wrongful act of another person whereas, Damages is the amount of money which is paid as
compensation for the injury suffered by a person.
• So, damages are different from damage and it is one of the remedies which is available to the plaintiff.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Liquidated damages are those in which the amount of compensation which

has to be paid to the injured person is predetermined. It is usually paid in the
cases of contracts where both the parties already know each other before the
damage is caused by any of them and thus the Courts only have to enforce
the condition of such damages.
• Unliquidated damages are those damages which are not predetermined
which means the amount which has to be paid is not decided before the injury
happens to a person. Unliquidated damages are awarded in cases of tort
because often the parties to such a case do not know each other before the
commission of tort and therefore it is not possible for them to fix the amount of
compensation beforehand.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Principle of Optimal Damages

• In the law of torts, the Court while awarding damages to the injured person makes all
the possible effort to ensure that the amount or quantum of damages is optimal. It
means that the damages awarded by the Courts should be reasonable and sufficient
and neither insufficient or over-compensation is given to the claimant.
• In determining the optimal damages the following factors are considered by the Court:
• The nature and extent of the injury.
• Whether the liability of the defendant is vicarious or not.
• The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
• Thus after considering the relevance of these factors the Court decides the damages
which have to be paid by the defendant in case he is found guilty of tort against the
plaintiff.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Nominal Damages
• Nominal damages are those in which even though the plaintiff has
suffered a legal injury at the hands of the defendant, there is no
actual suffered by him. These damages are provided in the cases of
Injuria sine damno in which the Court recognises the violation of the
right of the plaintiff but the amount of damages are so nominal or low
because of no actual loss to the plaintiff.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Contemptuous Damages
• In these type of damages, the Court recognises that the right of the
plaintiff is violated but to show that the suit brought by the plaintiff is
of such a trivial nature that it has only wasted the time of the Court,
the Court awards a meagre amount to the plaintiff as damages. This
is similar to the nominal damages but the only difference between
the two is that in nominal damages the plaintiff suffers no actual loss
and in contemptuous damages, the plaintiff suffers actual damage
but it is a trivial one in which he does not deserves to be fully
compensated.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Compensatory Damages
• Compensatory damages are awarded to help the plaintiff to reach
his original position at which he was before the tort was committed
against him. These damages are not awarded to punish the
defendant but to restore the plaintiff to his previous situation. These
damages are very helpful in cases of monetary losses in which the
amount of loss can be easily calculated and therefore that amount
can be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff so that he can replace the
damaged product or goods with such amount.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Aggravated Damages
• These damages are awarded for the extra harm which is caused to
the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by the compensatory
damages and it is given for factors such as the loss of self-esteem,
pain and agony suffered by the plaintiff etc. which cannot be
calculated in monetary terms. These damages are therefore
additional damages which are awarded to the plaintiff other than the
damages awarded for his pecuniary loss.
DAMAGES UNDER TORT LAW

• Punitive Damages
• These damages are also known as exemplary damages and the
purpose of these damages is to punish the defendant and to make
an example of him so that others are deterred from committing the
same act as he did. Thus, whenever a Court feels that the act of the
defendant was severely gross, it awards punitive damages against
him to the plaintiff.
EXAMPLES OF TORT CASES

• Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee
lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United
States over tort reform. Although a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a
79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled
hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded
$640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years
of medical treatment.
• Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was
too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's
had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded. The jury
damages included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million
in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a
confidential amount before an appeal was decided.
EXAMPLES OF TORT CASES

• Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981

• The Pinto, a subcompact car made by Ford Motor Company, became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas
tank was ruptured in a collision. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company
rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market.
• In 1972, a Ford Pinto driven by Lilly Gray stalled as she entered a merge lane on a California freeway. Her Pinto was rear-
ended by another car traveling about thirty miles per hour. The Pinto's gas tank ruptured, releasing gasoline vapors that
quickly spread to the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture, and the Pinto exploded in a ball of fire.
• Gray died a few hours later. Her passenger, thirteen-year-old Richard Grimshaw, suffered disfiguring burns and had to
endure dozens of operations. He underwent surgery to graft a new ear and nose using skin from the few unscarred portions
of his body.
• Grimshaw and Gray’s family filed a tort action against Ford, and the jury awarded not only $2.516 million to the Grimshaws
and $559,680 to the Grays in damages for their injuries, but also $125 million to punish Ford for its conduct. Ford appealed
the judgment, and the court reduced the award of punitive damages to $3.5 million. However, the court denied Ford's
request to have the punitive damages award thrown out entirely, finding that Ford had knowingly endangered the lives of
thousands of Pinto owners.
EXAMPLES OF TORT CASES

• Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981

• The Pinto, a subcompact car made by Ford Motor Company, became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas
tank was ruptured in a collision. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company
rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market.
• In 1972, a Ford Pinto driven by Lilly Gray stalled as she entered a merge lane on a California freeway. Her Pinto was rear-
ended by another car traveling about thirty miles per hour. The Pinto's gas tank ruptured, releasing gasoline vapors that
quickly spread to the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture, and the Pinto exploded in a ball of fire.
• Gray died a few hours later. Her passenger, thirteen-year-old Richard Grimshaw, suffered disfiguring burns and had to
endure dozens of operations. He underwent surgery to graft a new ear and nose using skin from the few unscarred portions
of his body.
• Grimshaw and Gray’s family filed a tort action against Ford, and the jury awarded not only $2.516 million to the Grimshaws
and $559,680 to the Grays in damages for their injuries, but also $125 million to punish Ford for its conduct. Ford appealed
the judgment, and the court reduced the award of punitive damages to $3.5 million. However, the court denied Ford's
request to have the punitive damages award thrown out entirely, finding that Ford had knowingly endangered the lives of
thousands of Pinto owners.
EXAMPLES OF TORT CASES

• Suing the Weatherman

• In Israel, a woman took a weatherman to court as his weather
prediction was wrong. Good weather had been predicted, but rain
materialized. The woman claimed that this fact meant that she was
inappropriately dressed and this led to her sustaining an injury, as
she caught the flu and was unable to go to work. Furthermore, she
had to spend money on medication. She was awarded the
equivalent of USD1,000.
EXAMPLES OF TORT CASES

• Suing Trains
• In New York City, a woman laid down on the subway tracks in
an attempt to commit suicide. When the train arrived, it didn’t
kill her but injured her instead. She then sued the city of New
York for these injuries. She was awarded USD14.1 million by
the Supreme Court.
END OF
LECTURE
(CAPUT PRIMUM)

RMT 551 – LAW IN PROJECT

MANAGEMENT