Tort Law

Tort Law is comprised of:

Based on compensation and deterrance
Tort law says awarding damages will allow people to reconsider their actions
There can be a tort case that can also be criminal case – OJ Simpson

• Intentional Torts
-deliberately causing causing harm/ detaining an individual

• Negligence
- Liable for damages even if he did not intentionally cause the event in question
 Tort Law

The purposes of tort law are:

• Compensation
Civil case for OJ- they proved it in 45 mins, and he was civilly liable

• Deterrence
 Tort Law

Tort law is not criminal law …

although they are often confused.

 Tort Law

Tort law comes from cases.

Common law – fit yourself in an established precedent to be successful
Trespass to person – intentionally touching someone without their consent
Trespass to property – intentionally touching someone’s property
But then people came up with Tort of nuisance- interfering with someone’s enjoyment
Next, Tort of defamation- saying something bad about someone – they should have just been punched in
the face lol.

Therefore, it changes over time.

 Tort Law
Tort law is a compensation scheme
which is based on fault.
Must prove someone was at fault to win, intentionally or negligently.
Tort of assault/property/ defamation – intentional tort- defendant acted intentionally (means that it is deliberate – intention
to be doing the thing that makes it a tort)
Standing on someone land because you intended to stand somewhere, it does not matter if you knew whos’ land it was.
He should have known better, etc. – tort of negligence
The liability comes from an act.

Tort of Negligence:
• Tort where the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was careless or reckless
• It opens the door for liability of omissions – things you didn’t do but you should have.
• Liability comes from something you didn’t do = omissions.

• Political and Social Reasons

• Worker compensation – they do not have to prove fault, they are just compensated
• If they were to prove fault, they would be fighting against their boss without a job
• What if the person was at fault? Then they get nothing
• Automobile compensation- if you get injured, you get money
• Unless you cross a threshold where the injury is really bad,
 Vicarious Liability
Employers are legally responsible for the wrongful acts
of their employees who are acting in the scope of their
employment.
• Not based on fault
• The employee is primarily liable – VL extends the liability of because of the
nature of the relationship
• VL is prevalent because:
• The employer is in a position to make sure things were done right – to prevent harm
• The plaintiff should sue the employer cause they have the money
• Economic symmetry – employer makes most profit when things go well, so its just makes sense
that when things go wrong, you have to deal with it.
• This allows employers to be on their toes to make sure nothing goes wrong
– this makes them raise prices to cover the costs of reducing any harm.
The employers distribute the risk of liability to everyone who participates in
the activity (consumer pays for extra maintenance)
• Insurance
• Properly trained staff/ more monitoring.
• Plaintiff always has to prove that she suffered damages – because if she
didn’t there is no tort. Exception – trespass – you don’t have to prove
damages – trespass to property even though no damages.
 Intentional Torts
• Trespass
• Nuisance
• Assault, Battery
• Conversion
• Defamation: intentionally making a false statement to screw someone over.
• Conspiracy- entering into a contract to do something – element of intention is built into the contract.
• Fraud
• False Imprisonment
• Malicious Prosecution

Even if there is a tort – there must be damages

 Business Related Torts

• Inducing breach of contract: paying someone to break contract.

• Intentional interference with economic relations:
• Injurious falsehood: Defamation to a product

Invasion of Privacy:
Intentional interference of personal information – OCA upheld it under tort law.
Important now that it was back then -
 Negligence

The plaintiff must prove (all of):

1. Duty of Care: duty to be careful

• Arises when a reasonable person foresees a risk of harm.

2. Breach of the Standard of Care

3. Breach standard of care results in Causation of Damages

Because there is no intention, and intentionality cannot be proven.

 Negligence

1. Duty of Care
Would a reasonable person foresee
the risk of harm?
Reasonable person- precedent cases and expert
Public policy requires that there be no duty of care.
Careless and wrong, reckless and wrong
• Incompetent vs negligent are different things

Hercules management
 Negligence

2. Breach of the Standard of Care

Negligence requires a person to behave as a “reasonable” person would

behave in the same circumstances.
 Negligence
3. Causation of Damages
• The “but for …” test but for the actions of the defendant, would the plaintiff have been fine?
• Reasonable foreseeability
• Type of injury suffered must be reasonable foreseeable
• TYPE not extent is reasonably foreseeable – thin skulled plaintiff
• Remoteness: are the damages too remote?
• There are too many intervening events between what happened and what damages were suffered.

- Proving causation is the hardest thing to do

 Defences

• Contributory negligence: negligence on behalf of the plaintiff

• Courts like to proportionate risk
• Voluntary assumption of risk- binary, plaintiff gets nothing
• Waivers, Limitation clauses/ exclusion cause
 Specific Types of Negligence

• Product Liability

• Occupier’s Liability: owe a duty of care to anybody who comes on their land

A reasonable person would make sure they have the best standard of care
because they are making money off of them (Wonderland).

• Alcohol Related Liability

• Impaired driving, civil remedies are growing – courts put more liability on the servers of alcohol to
expand the scope of liability to prevent the harm that is occurring

• Professional Liability:

Misrepresentation in contract with negligence – damages

Causation = reliance on professional direction

Believing a doctor – misrepresentation in negligence.