TORT LAW

PRESENTED BY:Shahrukh Nasir FA13-BCS-167Tehseen Qaiser FA13-BCS-009Albaalah Waqar FA13-BCS-227Asfand Sajid FA13-BCS-007Muhammad Hamza FA13-BCS-004 Noor Bin Khalid FA13-BCS-049

WHAT IS TORT ?The word tort comes from the Latin term torquere, which means "twisted or wrong."

WHAT IS TORT LAW ?A law applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others.

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act

called a tortfeasor.

TYPES OF TORT LAWThere are three types of tort law1. Intentional torts.2. Negligence 3. Strict liability

TYPES OF TORT LAWAll tortious charges of intentional interference with person/property involve intent, which provides for a civil wrong, knowingly committed by the offender,called Intentional tort.

This contrasts with torts of negligence, which results from lack of concern or responsibility on behalf of the offender. These damages are dealt with through civil litigation.

Strict liability applies when a defendant places another person in danger, even in the absence of negligence, simply because he is in possession of a dangerous product, animal or weapon. The plaintiff need not prove negligence.

DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PERSONSWhen a plaintiff accuses a defendant of an intentional tort, it is the defendant's responsibility to identify any justifications for his actions that may excuse him from liability.

In tort law, there are several privileges that a defendant may apprehend, in order to avoid liability. It is up to the courts to determine whether the defendant's privilege excuses him from liability.

CONTINUED… They need to conclude on whether the defendant had consent, permission by the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff was defending himself, his property, or another person.

If the defendant is able to establish privilege, then it is said that he has not committed a tortious act and will not be held liable.

INTENTIONAL TORTSExample 1: During Plaintiff Mullins’ surgery, a medical student performed an intubation that lacerated Mullins esophagus, requiring additional surgery and recovery time. Mullins had not consented to student involvement in her surgery. She sued for it.

INTENTIONAL TORTSExample 2: Five year old Brian Dailey (D) pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip. Garratt brought suit for personal injuries and alleged that Dailey had acted deliberately. The trial court entered judgment for Dailey and found that he had not intended to injure Garratt. The court nevertheless made a finding of $11,000 in damages in case the judgment was overturned on appeal. Dailey appealed. Note: A minor is liable just as any other person when he has committed an intentional tort with force.

CYBER TORTS

Cyber Torts are simply the torts done over cyberspace (Computer Networks,Internet etc.)

Cyber torts are very important because they are on the rise and are crimes that can have serious effects on society. 

Everyone should be exposed to the dangers and damages caused by cyber torts because technology is an important aspect in everyone’s lives, especially now.

TYPES OF CYBER TORTSOnline Defamation: An online message attacking another person or entity in harsh, often personal, and possibly defamatory, terms. Online defamation is difficult to combat because:

(1) The Communications Decency Act of 1996 absolves Internet service providers (“ISPs”) from liability for disseminating defamatory material; and

(2) The Internet affords a high degree of anonymity to the person who posted the defamatory message.

TYPES OF CYBER TORTSSpam: Bulk, unsolicited e-mail or newsgroup postings – usually an advertisement for the “spammer’s” product or service sent to all users on an e-mailing list or newsgroup.

 Some states have begun to regulate or prohibit the use of spam, giving recipients of unwanted spam, and even ISPs, legal bases for blocking spam and for recovering against spammers

NEGLIGENCE: STANDARD OF CONDUCTThere are certain elements that are required to prove that a defendant acted negligently.

There is a specific code of conduct which all people are expected to follow and there is a duty of the public to act in a certain way, which reduces the risk of harm to others.

Negligence can only be claimed by an injured plaintiff, whose interests have actually been interfered with.

NEGLIGENCE: STANDARD OF CONDUCTThis portrays that a plaintiff must prove his injuries, and prove that they were caused by the defendant.

This proximate cause is the link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries.

There is a statute of limitations in negligence cases, however, there are several rules, such as discovery and continuing negligence

which may excuse a plaintiff from the statute of limitations.

NEGLIGENCE PROOFThe necessity for a negligence case to be tried in a court of law is essential and evident.

Tort law, like any other law, is tough to decide upon when an enforcement or violation issue arises, and is furthermore tedious.

In negligence cases, a court appoints a jury to make a decision upon a case based on the direct or circumstantial evidence that is available to them.

CONTINUED…

The burden of proof a plaintiff faces in a case, relates to four elements of proof that must exist in order for them to be able to prove that a negligent act not only existed

But the fact that the act by a defendant, led to the injury sustained by the plaintiff. 

NEGLIGENCEExample 1: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976): A case in which a patient told his psychiatrist that he had thoughts of killing a girl. Later he did kill the girl. A leading case in defining the standard of the duty of care, and the duty to warn.

Example 2: Vaughan v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep.490 (C.P. 1837): An important case in the definition of a reasonable person standard in which a man negligently stacks hay that catches fire.

STRICT LIABILITYThe basic structure that encompasses that of strict liability is the fact that liability is maintained despite any intent otherwise.

In this way, it matters only that the action was performed to its fruition and an eventual injury of another.

Certain areas in which safety laws have had to come to the forefront concerning liability include incidents involving product defects.

CONTINUED…In cases such as these, consumers must only prove that their injuries stemmed directly from the product in question in order to garner an appropriate judgment from the court.

The purpose behind such a seemingly rigid form of legislature is to prevent future occurrences from happening by providing precedence to fall in line with.

Example: R v Blake (1996) The Times, 14 August.Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting.

DAMAGES

A remedy in the form of monetary compensation to the harmed party

Compensatory damages are paid to compensate the claimant for loss, injury, or harm suffered as a result of another's breach of duty.

Example: McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of tort reform. An 81-year-old woman received third degree burns from spilled coffee purchased from the restaurant chain and sued to recover her costs. The coffee that patrons bought at the drive-through, it turns out, was heated to be much hotter than the coffee they served inside was. The jury found the conduct of McDonald's so objectionable that they not only awarded her compensatory damages, but awarded the woman millions of dollars in punitive damages. Many casual observers considered this excessive. The punitive damages were later significantly reduced by a judge on appeal, though this fact is not as widely known as the jury's initial decision.