4.1 Intentional Torts and Negligence

Torts and product liability are crucial areas of law that protect individuals from harm. Intentional torts involve deliberate actions causing harm, while negligence deals with careless behavior leading to injury. Understanding these concepts is vital for managers to navigate legal risks and responsibilities.

This section dives into the key differences between intentional torts and negligence. It covers the legal elements, practical implications, and types of intentional torts. The notes also explore the elements of negligence and provide guidance on analyzing tort scenarios in real-world situations.

Intentional Torts vs Negligence

Key Differences in Legal Elements

Top images from around the web for Key Differences in Legal Elements

• 

  Compensation - Tablet image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Negligence - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Burden Of Proof - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 1 image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Compensation - Tablet image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Negligence - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Key Differences in Legal Elements

• 

  Compensation - Tablet image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Negligence - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Burden Of Proof - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 1 image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Compensation - Tablet image View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Negligence - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Intentional torts require defendant to act with intent or purpose to cause harm while negligence involves failure to exercise reasonable care
• Burden of proof for intentional torts typically higher than negligence cases often requiring clear and convincing evidence
• Damages in intentional tort cases may include punitive damages whereas negligence cases generally focus on compensatory damages
• Intentional torts often have shorter statutes of limitations compared to negligence claims (2 years vs 3 years in many jurisdictions)
• Defenses against intentional torts (consent, self-defense) differ from those used in negligence cases (contributory negligence, assumption of risk)
• Intentional torts generally not covered by liability insurance while negligence claims often are

Practical Implications

• Intentional torts may result in criminal charges in addition to civil liability (assault and battery)
• Negligence cases more common in personal injury lawsuits (car accidents, slip and falls)
• Intentional torts often easier to prove in terms of causation but harder to prove intent
• Negligence cases may involve complex analyses of duty of care and breach standards
• Intentional torts may lead to more severe reputational damage for defendants
• Negligence claims more likely to be settled out of court due to insurance coverage

Types of Intentional Torts

Physical Interference Torts

• Battery involves intentional and offensive physical contact with another person without their consent (punching someone)
• Assault creates reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact (threatening to hit someone)
• False imprisonment confines a person without lawful justification or consent (locking someone in a room)
• Trespass to land involves intentionally entering or remaining on another's property without permission (walking through a private garden)

Emotional and Reputational Torts

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress (repeatedly harassing a grieving widow)
• Defamation includes libel (written) and slander (spoken) involving false statements that harm a person's reputation (falsely accusing someone of a crime in a newspaper)
• Invasion of privacy encompasses various torts related to intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and appropriation of name or likeness (publishing private medical records)

Property-Related Torts

• Conversion interferes with another's right to possession of personal property (stealing or destroying someone's laptop)
• Trespass to chattels involves intentionally interfering with another's personal property without causing major damage (borrowing a car without permission)
• Nuisance creates substantial and unreasonable interference with another's use and enjoyment of their property (operating a noisy factory in a residential area)

Elements of Negligence

Duty and Breach

• Duty of care represents legal obligation to act with reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others (drivers have a duty to follow traffic laws)
• Breach of duty occurs when defendant fails to meet standard of care expected in given circumstances (texting while driving)
• Reasonable person standard determines if defendant's actions were negligent in given circumstances (would a reasonable person have acted similarly?)
• Special relationships may create heightened duties of care (doctor-patient, teacher-student)

Causation and Damages

• Causation consists of two elements:
  • Cause-in-fact (but-for causation) means harm would not have occurred but for defendant's actions
  • Proximate cause requires harm to be foreseeable consequence of defendant's actions
• Damages refer to actual harm or loss suffered by plaintiff as result of defendant's negligence (medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering)
• Res ipsa loquitur doctrine allows negligence to be inferred in certain circumstances without direct evidence of breach (surgical instrument left inside patient)

Defenses and Limitations

• Contributory negligence bars recovery if plaintiff's own negligence contributed to injury (varies by jurisdiction)
• Comparative negligence reduces damages based on percentage of fault attributed to plaintiff
• Assumption of risk may bar recovery if plaintiff voluntarily accepted known risks (participating in dangerous sports)
• Statutes of limitations limit time within which negligence claims can be filed (typically 2-3 years from date of injury)

Analyzing Tort Scenarios

Identifying Key Elements

• Identify key facts and circumstances of scenario including actions of all parties involved
• Evaluate whether defendant's actions were intentional or unintentional to determine if intentional tort or negligence claim more appropriate
• For potential intentional torts assess whether specific elements of relevant tort (battery, assault, false imprisonment) present in scenario
• For potential negligence claims examine scenario for evidence of duty, breach, causation, and damages

Applying Legal Principles

• Consider potential defenses that may apply to either intentional torts or negligence claims based on facts presented (self-defense, consent, contributory negligence)
• Assess likelihood of success for each potential claim based on strength of evidence and legal precedents
• Determine if jurisdiction-specific laws or regulations may affect application of tort law in given scenario (state-specific damage caps, modified comparative negligence rules)
• Evaluate potential for multiple causes of action arising from same incident (battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress)