a civil claim other than a claim for breach of contract
tort
person who commits a tort
tortfeasor
committed when the tortfeasor breaches a legal duty to another and that breach causes a legally recognized injury
tort
Torts generally require that the plaintiff prove their case by a
Preponderance of the evidence
the trier of fact, a judge or a jury, can have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt
the trier of fact finds it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable for committing the wrongful act
prove a case by preponderance of the evidence
(1) to encourage people to act in a way that does not harm others
(2) to compensate the victims of a wrongful act
purpose of tort law
the current tort system in the United States has both
common law and statutory components
involves a situation in which the tortfeasor had no intention of creating a wrong but, because of a lapse in judgment or a failure to be careful, harmed someone else
unintentional tort
results when a defendant breaches a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by acting in a way that a reasonable person would not act
Negligence
prevail in a negligence claim
potentially dangerous object that might attract others—primarily children—onto land
attractive nuisance
the average person in society who exercises an average amount of care when conducting their affairs
reasonable person
an injury that rises above a certain legal threshold
legal injury
“but-for” cause of the damages, meaning that “but for” a certain event there would not have been an injury
Causation in fact
sometimes referred to as legal causation, requires a strong causal relationship between a breached legal duty and damages
Proximate cause
occurs when a violation of the law establishes a breach of duty on the part of the defendant
Negligence per se
prove negligence per se
“the thing speaks for itself”
Res ipsa loquitur
negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed in some fashion to their injury
Contributory negligence
compares the contribution of the defendant toward the plaintiff’s injury with the con-tribution of the plaintiff toward their own injury
Comparative negligence
the defendant asserts that something beyond the defen-dant’s control intervened to cause the plaintiff’s injury
intervening cause
results when the plaintiff increased the likelihood of injury by knowingly engaging in a risky activity
Assumption of risk
Defenses to Negligence