Law assignment

Intentional torts are wrongful but purposeful acts done to someone, and that hurts them. The perpetrator plans them and carries them out, being fully aware that their actions will harm someone. Intentional torts are sometimes termed as crimes. Examples of these acts include trespassing on private property, pranks, touching someone inappropriately, assault, false imprisonment, fraud, defamation, intentionally inflicting emotional stress on someone. Intentional torts could also be done by a person who does not wish to cause harm to the other, for example when someone surprises someone with a heart condition and it causes them to suffer a heart attack. In case a defendant proves that they had no intent to harm the plaintiff, they may escape the liability of the losses. The uniqueness of these kinds of torts is that most of them have the purpose element(Vishnubhakat, 2016). Negligence, however, can never be used as a defence. Negligent torts occur when someone acts unreasonably and irresponsibly in their duties and end up causing loss of money or injury to someone. Elements of negligence are five; they include misconduct or breach, which is the act of omission or an improper act done to the plaintiff. Cause in fact which seeks to find whether an action to someone meant to harm them. Proximate cause aims to find out whether it is practical, logical and fair for the defendant to be held accountable for their actions, duty and harm is the objective for legal action. It requires the defendant to compensate the plaintiff. In misconduct, a set of a standard on how to behave must preexist. The significant difference between these torts depends on the mindset of the perpetrator, was it just negligence or on purpose(Caine & Thomas, 2013).

BUY A SIMILAR PAPER NOW

There are three central defence doctrines on actions based on a negligent tort. They are comparative fault, contributory negligence and assumption of risk. In a successful defence against failure the defendant will always try to prove that they did not owe the plaintiff any duty, they were careful and reasonable while carrying out their actions and their actions caused no harm or damage to the plaintiff. These actions are so that the defendant can avoid or limit the liabilities of their activities. In contributory negligence, the plaintiff is partially responsible for the damage or harm that happens to them due to their failure as well. It ascertains that the plaintiff cannot be protected as his action was below a given standard. The plaintiff actions become the proximate cause and cause-in-fact for their harm or damage. The last clear chance is an exception to the contributory negligence defence, whereby the defendant could have avoided injury by being careful and cautious.

Comparative negligence or non-absolute contributory negligence reduces the liabilities of the defendant by a percentage which the plaintiff is responsible for their damages. Some states in the USA, if the plaintiff equally at fault or more at spot than the defendant, no compensation is done to them. Types of comparative negligence are modified whereby the plaintiff negligence is equal or less than the defendant’s hence their damages are compensated. Slight –gross negligence where damages are granted to the plaintiff if his negligence was slight than the defendant’s’, pure where a percentage of the defendant’s damages is awarded to the plaintiff. In risk assumption, the plaintiff is required to have facts and knowledge of the risks involved in an activity and must do the action out of their own will. Additional damages fall entirely on the defendant.

Civil trials follow the rules and a laid down process to reach a verdict. These events processes are as follows. The opening statement where the plaintiff and the defendant give the parties present just an idea of their dispute. They briefly discuss their problem. The plaintiff will try to prove that the defendant is guilty of a matter as the defendant attempts to prove their innocence. The plaintiff then submits their evidence. The two types of evidence allowed in court are circumstantial and direct evidence. Direct evidence is also known as factual evidence which is valid until proven otherwise. Circumstantial evidence tries to insinuate facts of the defendant’s wrongdoings to the judge and the jury. In direct and witnesses cross-examination, all the witnesses are called to the stand, and the plaintiff’s attorney will questions them on matters concerning the dispute. Sometimes the witnesses are asked to give their opinion concerning a specific issue. The defendant’s attorney, on the other hand, tries to discredit testimonies from the plaintiff’s witness(Bryant & McClellan, 2017).

The defence evidence presented. The defence can also provide a witness to examined directly and the previous witnesses and testimonies re-cross examined. Before this, the defence attorney will present a motion to dismiss the evidence to the judge by claiming that the evidence was not enough or of relevance to the trial. In most cases, the judge declines the motion. Plaintiff rebuts, and the argument closes. A chance is given to the plaintiff to refuse the defendant’s claim. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have an opportunity for a final motion. In the closing statements,  both sides do a summation. The plaintiff appeals to the jury. The judge then gives the jury instructions on how to issue a verdict.

CHEAP ESSAY WRITING SERVICES

Strict liability is also referred to as absolute liability. It is ones legal liability for injuries or damages caused regardless of the perpetrator’s intentions or state of mind. The theory applies in three situations which are, manufacturing defects, animal bites and abnormally dangerous activities(Brown, 2012).

Many states in the USA have imposed absolute liability on defective manufactured goods. A plaintiff could get compensated by the manufacturer even if the producer followed all the correct and careful procedures during manufacturing if a particular product harms them. They do not need to prove that the manufacturer was reckless. The plaintiff only needs to confirm that the product was defective and dangerous to them. Some jurisdictions have imposed this theory on animal bites since animals do not have a conscience; hence those people who keep animals that attack or bite should restrain them. Those with domestic animals are required to be aware of where their animals can harm other people or property. In some localities, if someone decides to keep a wild animal and it ends up causing harm to someone or property even if the animal is known to be completely docile, the owner is held liable. In abnormally dangerous activities, one is held strictly responsible if they engage in ultra-hazardous activities that endanger other people. Highly risky activities cannot be fully protected against by primary care. The plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant’s ultra-hazardous actions caused them harm and that the damage was anticipated due to the defendant’s activities(Abraham, 2011).

The basis for strict liability is the defendant’s liability for his actions which caused harm to someone or propertyregardless of their intentions, faults or mental state when doing the act. It applies both in criminal law and tort (Thomas, 2010).

Vishnubhakat, S. (2016). An Intentional Tort Theory of Patents. Florida Law Review, 68, 571. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/uflr68&div=20&id=&page=

‌Caine, C. P., & Thomas, H. R. (2013). Negligent Tort Liability of the Design Professional. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 5(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000098

‌Bryant, G. K., & McClellan, K. R. (2017). The Disappearing Civil Trial: Implications for the Future of Law Practice. Regent University Law Review, 30, 287. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/regulr30&div=18&id=&page=

‌Brown, D. K. (2012). Criminal Law Reform and the Persistence of Strict Liability. Duke Law Journal, 62, 285. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/duklr62&div=11&id=&page=

‌Abraham, K. S. (2011). Strict Liability in Negligence. DePaul Law Review, 61, 271. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/deplr61&div=13&id=&page=

‌Thomas, K. D. (2010). The Case against a Strict Liability Economic Substance Penalty. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 13, 445. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/upjlel13&div=15&id=&page=