Definition of Tort Law
Definition of Tort Law
Tort law refers to the set of laws that provides remedies to individuals who
have suffered harm by the unreasonable acts of another. The law of tort is
based on the idea that people are liable for the consequences of their actions,
whether intentional or accidental, if they cause harm to another person or
entity. Torts are the civil wrongs that form the basis of civil lawsuits. To
explore this concept, consider the following tort law definition.
The types of damages that may be awarded by the court for civil wrongs,
called “tortious conduct,” of an individual or entity include:
Tort Liability
The legal term tort refers to an action in which one person or entity causes
injury, harm, or damage to another person or entity. A tort liability may occur
as a result of intentional acts, a negligent act, a failure to act when the
individual had a duty to act, or a violation of statutes or laws. The individual
who commits the tortious act (the act leading to the tort liability claim) is called
the “tortfeasor,” and is the defendant in this type of civil lawsuit. Such a
defendant is generally held liable for damages or harm suffered by the
plaintiff, as a result of the defendant’s acts.
In many tort cases, the damages or injury suffered by the plaintiff do not have
to be physical injury. A defendant in a tort liability case, who is found to be
liable for his or her tortious acts, may be ordered to pay damages for harm,
such as violation of personal rights, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.
Types of Tort
There are a number of specific types of tort that form the basis of the majority
of civil lawsuits in the United States. These include, among others:
Negligence
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Assault
Battery
Trespass
Products Liability
Tort law divides most specific torts into three general categories:
Defamation Torts
Nuisance Torts
Privacy Torts
Economic Torts
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.
Tort examples:
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.
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
Tort examples:
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.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), the U.S. government is liable for
the tortious acts of individuals acting on the government’s behalf, in the same
way a private party would be liable in similar circumstances. The amount of
damages that may be awarded in such a lawsuit, however, is limited, with no
allowance for punitive damages, or interest accumulated prior to the date of
judgment.
The Federal Tort Claims Act also exempts the federal government from
certain specified torts, though this protection is not extended to intentional
torts committed by law enforcement officials. This means that individuals
harmed by the unlawful actions of law enforcement officials may bring a civil
lawsuit against the agency for damages.
Once an administrative claim has been filed, the agency has six months to
respond to the claimant. If the claimant is not happy with the agency’s
response or decision, he has six months from the date the response was
mailed to him to file a civil lawsuit under the FTCA. In the event the federal
agency does not respond to the claimant within the six month time frame, the
claimant may go ahead and file a civil lawsuit, but his six-month statute of
limitations does not begin to run until the agency actually provides a response
or decision.
When filing a claim under the FTCA, the lawsuit must be filed in the U.S.
District Court, which is the official name of the federal court, in the district
where the tortious act occurred, or where the plaintiff lives.
Tort Reform
The term tort reform has been bandied about as a hot-button issue since the
congressional elections in 2010. The average American citizen does not
understand what tort reform actually means, and has no idea that it has no
bearing on any laws, but is a general acknowledgement that the amount of
damages awarded to victorious plaintiffs in tort lawsuits has grown too large.
During the course of the case, it was discovered McDonald’s had received
hundreds of other complaints from customers complaining that their coffee
had caused severe burns, and that the corporation’s operations manual
specified the coffee was to be kept at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. It is known
and accepted, by the scientific and medical communities, that liquid at that
temperature, if spilled onto a person, causes third degree burns in three to
seven seconds.
A jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages to pay for
medical bills and other related expenses. Because it was clear the company
knew its coffee was kept at a dangerously high temperature, and was
therefore likely cause serious injury, the jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7
million in punitive damages, which amounted to the company’s sales revenue
from just two days of coffee sales.
While many proponents of tort reform view this case as a supreme example of
a frivolous lawsuit with a shockingly high award, the truth is, McDonald’s knew
its coffee could cause third degree burns, yet continued to specifically instruct
its restaurant employees to keep and serve it at that temperature. Ms.
Liebeck’s injuries were severe, her painful third degree burns requiring skin
grafts. McDonald’s was given an opportunity to settle the matter out of court,
but they refused to do so.
Ultimately, the judge reduced the amount awarded by the jury to $640,000,
and the case was appealed by McDonald’s, which finally settled for an
undisclosed amount before the appeal concluded. In this case, the current tort
system worked property, as it prompted McDonald’s to settle the case, quite
possibly because of a concern that the award would be boosted back up to
the original amount awarded by the jury.