Download
1 / 12
160 likes | 369 Vues
Unintentional Torts. Definition. Unintentional Torts are cases in which someone is injured by accident or the actions that was not intended to cause harm Intent is only determined through the concept of negligence Represents is one of the largest categories of tort law. Negligence.
E N D
Definition • Unintentional Torts are cases in which someone is injured by accident or the actions that was not intended to cause harm • Intent is only determined through the concept of negligence • Represents is one of the largest categories of tort law
Negligence • Negligence is the careless conduct that causes foreseeable harm • Doug tries to push Becky into a pool and in the scuffle a third person is knocked down and injured • Negligence can only be proven after three factors have been verified
Factors in Negligence • In order to obtain conviction the plaintiff must prove that all of the factors of negligence were evident • At each stage are key elements required: • Duty of Care • Standard of Care • Cause
Factors in Negligence • Stage One • Determine: Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a Duty of Care? • Stage Two • Determine: Did the defendant fail to provide the plaintiff with the proper Standard of Care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation? • Stage Three • Did the defendant’s actions (or failure to act) Cause the plaintiff’s injuries
Duty of Care The obligation to avoid careless action that could harm others • Is usually proven through the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant • If the defendant knew the other person • Even if there was no prior relationship the defendant could still be proven to have avoided a Duty of Care • Neighbour Principle • Someone fails to remove the snow from their sidewalk and someone slips and falls • The duty of care element hinges on the premise that your actions had foreseeable results • The ability to anticipate the consequences of an action • By not shovelling your sidewalk it will get slippery and create a hazard
Standard of Care The degree of caution expected of a reasonable person • Is determined by comparing the defendant’s behaviour with that of a “normal” reasonable person • In some professions the standard of care is higher than that imposed on the rest of society • Lawyers: they have a higher level of knowledge of the law and can be held accountable to a higher code • Doctors: are held to higher standard • Usually in the effort to inform their patients of the risks / benefits of treatments • Failure to do so opens them to Medical Negligence
Parent / Child • While not a profession parents are held to higher standard of care then other adults • Children can be held liable if they commit an act that was “adult” in nature. They do have to understand the fact that their act was illegal. (11 year old drives his parents car) • Most cases involving a child put the parent more at risk as they have the economic resources to make restitution • Parents can be held accountable for their children’s actions based on a failure to teach their kids or supervise them appropriately • Can be charged with negligence • In some cases the children can hold their own parents accountable
Cause or Causation • Is usually determined be asserting Cause in Fact • Cause in Fact: when an injury can be directly related to the actions or omissions of the defendant • In some cases where there are a number of people or the fault can also be ascribed to the defendant the judge may divide the blame • This is called apportionment • When the actions of the defendant do not lead directly to the injuries they can still be liable under other factors
Remoteness of Damage • A man exceeding the speed limit in his car swerves to avoid hitting a dog. His car goes off the road and parts of his car are scattered over a field. Some goats come along and eat these parts, fall ill and die. The farmer may try to sue the dog owner for his indirect part in the accident
When remoteness becomes a liability is due to the Intervening Facts • If the man was not driving too fast the accident may not have happened • The dog was a factor in the accident but on its own the fact that the dog was unleashed did not directly lead to the death of the goats
Thin Skull Rule • Even if someone has a predisposed condition that can lead to injuries and they are injured by your actions you can still be found liable • You fail to shovel your walkway and an old man with brittle bones falls and breaks his arms, a wrist and his pelvis
