Category: 

What is Tort Law?

Tort law is a branch of civil law.
Tort law covers civil issues like trespassing.
Article Details
  • Written By: Mary McMahon
  • Edited By: O. Wallace
  • Last Modified Date: 17 August 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
The highest reliably recorded surface temperature in the world was in Death Valley at 134 F (57 C).  more...

August 20 ,  1955 :  Hundreds of people were killed in anti-French rioting in Morocco and Algeria.  more...

Tort law is a branch of the law which covers civil wrongs, such as defamation and trespassing, among many other transgressions. Under tort law, if someone suffers a physical, legal, or economic harm, he or she may be entitled to bring suit. If the suit is deemed valid, damages may be awarded to the victim to compensate for his or her troubles. Most tort laws are found in regional, state, and national civil codes, which often spell out limits on damages and the statute of limitations for tort cases.

Many people divide tort law into three rough categories: negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability torts. Torts arising out negligence are civil wrongs caused by negligent behavior or a failure to practice due diligence. For example, if you are playing soccer in the street and you accidentally kick the ball through someone's living room window, this may be a negligence tort. Medical malpractice and other forms of professional negligence are also covered under the umbrella of negligence torts.

Intentional torts are torts which involve a deliberate attempt to harm. Defamation is often viewed as an intentional tort, as is battery, fraud, false imprisonment, and interference with the economic operations of a company. Strict liability torts cover product liability; if a potato peeler takes your finger off when you operate it as directed, the manufacturer could be liable, for example.

Ad

Tort law also covers issues like nuisances, such as noise pollution and loose livestock. In some countries, industrial pollution and releases of toxins are covered under tort law as “toxic torts,” allowing organizations and individuals to bring suit against companies which pollute. Nuisance torts can sometimes be challenging to prove, as the definition of a “nuisance” often varies from person to person.

As can be seen from some of the examples above, a tort doesn't have to cause physical injury or distress. It might cause economic damage, by forcing someone to replace something, interfering with someone's business, or causing someone to miss work. Or it may cause damage to someone's reputation or quality of life. In order for a tort case to succeed in court, the lawyers must generally be able to prove that the accused party had committed the wrong in question, and that the client suffered as a result. Damages may be awarded by a jury or a judge, depending on the case.

Incidentally, don't confuse “tort,” a branch of the law, with “torte,” a rich cake which typically includes a high volume of nuts or chocolate and eggs, with little to no flour.

Ad

More from Wisegeek

You might also Like

Discuss this Article

anon327690
Post 15

I am reading for an exam and I want to get a clear understanding of what tort law is all about. This is kind of major to me.

anon147013
Post 13

Potomac Ltd should be advised that liability ensues on grounds of "Due diligence" in (1) tort if safety protocols and procedures are not made to follow and (2) crime for Rob's act if it can be proven that consent was given to a subject with unclean DMV record(s) that would not qualify him as a delivery man by mode of vehicle.

anon138675
Post 12

I think in the case of Potomac Ltd. this is not a case of tort. This can be a crime that does not includes mens ria. Tort is something civil. --Mrunal

anon131729
Post 11

If Rob has not yet delivered the documents then he is still "on company time" and as such Potomac would be liable under tort law.

Unless Potomac has company policy which requires Rob to drive and use his cellphone at the same time, Potomac is off the hook for the criminal charges.

Rob was acting irresponsibly (and most likely criminally given today's distracted driving laws) and the company is not responsible for those actions any more than if he used a company car to perform a drive by shooting.

anon122442
Post 9

i want to know the history of tort.

anon118967
Post 8

There are a number of considerations which must be addressed and there is an insufficiency of information:

1: Who owns the vehicle and what level of insurance is there for the vehicle?

2: To whom is Rob speaking on the phone; is it a company phone; has the company supplied a hands free kit; was that kit in use and has the company issued guidelines to its staff on the use of mobile phones whilst driving?

anon95267
Post 6

This sounds great! but how did tort laws come about?

anon90292
Post 5

i would love to know more about tort. what are the advantages and the disadvantages.

anon68292
Post 4

i usually think it is both and depending on the legislation if driving while using a mobile phone is wrong when it is a crime committed and also it is a negligent act because if the person realised that using mobile phone while driving is an offence he/she shouldn't have used the mobile phone in the first place.

anon37456
Post 3

It seems to be a reasonable explanation for law of tort.

Dr.R.M.J.B.Ratnayake

latoya078
Post 2

I want to know what others think. I am in an online paralegal class and was trying to get a clear understanding of tort law.

Binal
Post 1

Rob, a director of Potomac Ltd, offers to take documents for the company to ASIC for lodgement on his way home. He became distracted as he was driving along and talking into his mobile phone. His car mounted the pavement and seriously injured a pedestrian.

You are asked to advise Potomac Ltd whether it is liable in (1) tort and (2) crime for Rob’s act.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email