Sunteți pe pagina 1din 28

TORT LAW

PRESENTED BY:
Shahrukh Nasir
Tehseen Qaiser
Albaalah Waqar

FA13-BCS-167
FA13-BCS-009
FA13-BCS-227

Asfand Sajid
Muhammad Hamza
Noor Bin Khalid

FA13-BCS-007
FA13-BCS-004
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 LAW


There are three types of tort law
1. Intentional torts.
2. Negligence
3. Strict liability

TYPES OF TORT LAW


All 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 PERSONS
When 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 TORTS
Example 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 TORTS
Example 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 everyones lives, especially now.

TYPES OF CYBER
TORTS
Online 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
TORTS
Spam: Bulk, unsolicited e-mail or newsgroup postings
usually an advertisement for the spammers 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 CONDUCT
There 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 CONDUCT
This 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 PROOF
The 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.

NEGLIGENCE
Example 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 LIABILITY
The 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 clbre 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.