In tort case laws, the harmed party, called the "plaintiff" in civil suits (same to

prosecution in criminal lawsuits)—seeks compensation from the "defendant" for damages

initiated, via the assistance of the personal damage attorney. Duty, violation of duty, causation,
and harm are the four components of every effective tort lawsuit. There should have been a
violation of an obligation by the accused against the complainant that led to harm for a tort case
to be well-founded (Best et al, 2018).Torts come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Intentional torts
are those that are done on purpose. This is an intentional tort when a person or corporation
deliberately participates in an action that causes damage or hurts another. Striking somebody in a
dispute, for instance, would be regarded as intended behavior that could lie under the "tort of
battery"; nevertheless, hitting somebody by accident could not be deemed "intentional" since
there had been no determination to injure the person. If the person impacted was injured,
however, this behaviour may be called negligence. While a deliberate tort might appear similar
to the criminal trial, there are substantial distinctions. A crime is wrongdoing that damages or
disrupts society's interests. The intentional torts, however, are improper acts that damage and
restrict a person's well-being and property. Negligence is another type of tort. Each person is
obligatory to obey a specified code of behaviour, and it is the public's lawful obligation to
behave in a manner to limit the risk of damage to other people. Negligence is the inability to
follow these guidelines. 
Assume the jury decides the bench seat collapsed because the bus company,
WeDriveTeams, installed the bench seat incorrectly. Why would this fact be relevant to the
case?
If the jury decides that WeDrive Team installed the bench seats incorrectly, the company
will be strictly liable for the injury. Strict liability is a  tort in which strict responsibility applies.
Strict or "absolute" liability is the situation wherein the offender can be answerable for damages
without demonstrating negligence and direct blame (Best et al, 2018). When the case comprises a
"strict liability tort", the plaintiff will have a compensation claim even when the responsible
person employed rational precautions or did not mean to injure them. The victim needs to show
that they had been injured due to the other individual's activities. What counts is that a move was
taken that led to another human's injury. To have the legislation in their favour in such disputes,
the wounded customer needs to show that the goods at issue caused their damages directly. The
reality that the corporation did not "mean" to hurt the customer is irrelevant.