Also the plaintiff can ask the court to order the defendant to stop doing something they are or have previously been doing, this most commonly happens in contracts made between two people, for example if one person made a sale of a painting worth one million and then tried selling it again if they were offered a better price, the person who originally purchased the painting can order an injunction from the court so that the seller cannot sell the painting to anyone else.
Sometimes one act can include both a tort and a crime for instance if one person stole something of someone else, this is a criminal offence, they would probably be charged with theft but it is also a tort against the person who originally owned the property.
Tort as well as being an action which causes harm to a person is also a law that protects an individual from any harm that may be caused by the unreasonable actions of another. Tort claims are based on the legal premise of the duty of care and that people are liable for the consequences of their behavior especially if it caused injury. Tort laws often result in civil lawsuits.
There are two types of tort:
The first type is intentional, these are offences which are committed by a person who actually intended to cause harm on another person. In this case intent is proven if the person who will commit tort knows about the injury that will be the result of his/her action. Assault is intentional tort and is creating fear and battery which is the actual physical pain one person inflicts on another. Assault and battery are the two most common types of tort. The other type is Tort of negligence; this is considered the unintentional tort. Negligent torts are actions that violated the standard duty of care that cause a unexpected or unintended injury to a person.
Negligence and Tort Law
In negligent tort claims there are four elements which must be proven by the claimant. The first is duty to protect, everybody has to abide the law and follow the legal duty they have to care for all. This means that a person shouldn’t do anything reckless which could possibly result in the harm of another person. For example if you are a doctor your job is to care for your patients and ensure you are doing your job properly as not doing so could result in injury or even fatal consequences. It is important that as a doctor you are careful when doing things such as prescribing patients the appropriate amount and safe medication.
Case 1: Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] HL
[Tort – negligence - damage - causation – medical treatment - loss of chance of recovery]
D the hospital where C, a young boy was taken after he fell out of a tree injuring his hip. The injury was wrongly diagnosed and he was thus given inappropriate treatment. He suffered a permanent disability; the hospital admitted negligence but denied liability.
C could not prove that the treatment for his injury had caused his disability and therefore the chances were 75-25 that it hadn’t. Therefore they had no claim at all.
If C could of proven that the medical negligence was the cause which worsened the condition he would have been entitled to full damage..
Case 2: Ogwo v Taylor [1987] HL
[Tort - damage - foreseeability]
D negligently set fire to his house while using a blowlamp. C a fireman was injured while fighting the fire.
The Fireman C’s injuries were a foreseeable result of D's negligence, and it was irrelevant that he was employed as a fireman and expected to take risks as part of his job. He won the case as he was injured due to someone else’s negligence. It would have been an arguable case as to whether he should have won the case as his job did include risking his life to fight fires. However he won the case.
If someone is careless and doesn’t do their job properly, they can cause dangerous outcomes which could pose a threat to other people.
The actual injury, is the breach of duty which must eventually result in a loss of injury.
The breach of duty: This Happens when a person fails to use a reasonable amount of care when dealing with another person. They could either intentionally or unintentionally expose someone to a dangerous situation which poses a threat and results in damage.
Actual injury: The breach of duty has to result in loss or an injury, there should be a clear and obvious injury because the defendant will be found innocent if there are no injuries on the plaintiff. If it is property damage and emotion distress evidence of the damage or the stress caused to the plaintiff will have to be shown, for example a doctor’s letter saying the person is suffering from stress or when damaged property pictures should be taken as proof damage was done.
The last element will state the connection in the breach of duty and the injury which was the result of the act or a factual or legal cause if not no compensation will be awarded to the plaintiff.
Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.
In a tort if it is successful the tort is settled by award of damages. In the court of negligence awarding damages is basically awarding money, in the court of negligence each case will have a different outcome however the damages are limited to the actual loss suffered and do not increase because there are two causes of action.
The main reason the court of negligence award damages to the plaintiff is to ensure they are paid back what they are owed and quite often a bit more which is known as compensation. The person suing is often doing so because they lost money due to a wrongful doing, the best example of this would be if someone crashed in to the back of their car whilst on their phone and not concentrating on the road as they should have been. As the person who crashed has a duty of care it is up to them to ensure they do not cause any damage or put anyone in danger. The person would then have to pay damages of whatever it cost for the person to fix their car and anything else which could have affected them, e.g. injured their back, the defendant would then have to pay for whatever hospital or physic therapy costs.
A cash compensation ordered by a court to offset losses or suffering caused by another's fault or negligence. Damages are a typical request made of a court when persons sue for breach of contract or tort.
"Damages: A sum of money awarded by the court as compensation to the claimant. Aggravated damages: Additional damages which the court may award as compensation for the defendant's objectionable behavior. Exemplary damages: Damages which go beyond compensating for actual loss and are awarded to show the court's disapproval of the defendant's behavior”
In a tort case It I better when someone poor is injured and suing someone rich as they can then claim more whereas if it is the other way round they cannot be awarded as much damages especially if the defendant doesn’t have any money.
Sources:
http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_3damage.htm#Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] HL
