A tort is a civil offense Essay

A tort is a civil offense

A tort is a civil offense that unfairly subjects another person to loss or damage and makes the tortfeasor liable in court. It is not necessary for someone to provide evidence of bodily harm; instead, emotional, reputational, and financial loss will do. Tort includes problems like defamation, pollution of the ecosystem, and negligence among others. The parties in a lawsuit case have established that another party violated a right, for which they hold that party accountable.

When the castle breaks

When the castle breaks, minors Henrik and Jacob both sustain injuries to their hands and receive bruises on their legs. Through their mother, they can sue Kingston for negligence. The court in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] pointed out that negligence arises from the breach of duty owed to another. It laid down the principle that should be fulfilled to hold a defendant liable for negligence. They are a duty of care, breach of that duty which directly caused injury to the plaintiff. The court further stated that damage must arise from the breach and that the damage was not too remote. The minors need to demonstrate that there was a proximate cause as it was held in the case of March v E Stramare Pty Ltd (1991). The court in Rowland v. Christian, (1968) held that a party owes a duty to its visitors or invitees. It, therefore, follows that Kingston has a duty of care to its guests. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, Kingston is liable for the wrong artistry of NST Ltd who erected a faulty castle.

Kate, Bianca, and Liam

Kate, Bianca, and Liam

Kate is the mother to the two boys. Under the doctrines of negligence, Kate is liable for the injuries caused to the minor. In Pokura v. Wabash Ry. Co.(1934) court held that negligence is determined by the facts and reasonable man standards. The parameter of a reasonable person was set in Vaughan v. Menlove,(1837). She ought to have driven carefully as so as not to cause the accident. The minor has contributed to the injuries sustained by playing; the defense was established in the case of Butterfield V Forrester (1809).

Liam has suffered severe neck and spine injury, due to the accident caused by Kate. Under the doctrine of negligence, Kate is liable for driving the vehicle without due care for other road users. In March v E Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) the court said that plaintiff must show that the tort one caused the harm is suing for. In the matter of Dillingham Constructions Pty. Ltd. v. Steel Mains Pty. Ltd. [1975] the court held that a careless driver who causes injury to pedestrians should be liable for the act. It is immaterial of the state of the mind of the person who was driving the car during the accident. The Court in National Insurance Co. of New Zealand Ltd. v. Espagne [1961] said that impairment of the driver does not count when they have caused an accident by negligent driving.

Kate would plead contributory negligence to negate the intensity of her liability. The court in Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd. [1953] found the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in driving while under the influence of alcohol. It was held in Nicol v. Allyacht Spars Pty. Ltd. [1987] that a plaintiff could not recover the full amount of damages for an injury that was the result of their negligent conduct. This principle was also held in Sherman v. Nymboida Collieries Pty. Ltd. [1963] where it said that damages recoverable are to be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the applicant's responsibility for the loss.

Regarding the post-traumatic stress disorder, she should demonstrate that she has undergone a medically recognized condition. The court in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] held that the law does not award damages if shock did not induce the psychiatric injury. In the matter of Vernon v Bosley (No 1) [1997] the court ruled that distress is not a medically recognized condition. In this case, the plaintiff suffered distress after witnessing firefighters trying to rescue her children from a car wreckage. The court must be convinced that the shock experienced by Kate was brought on by a sudden event. In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] it was held that shock involves the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying sight or sound or horrific event, which violently agitates the mind. In this respect, Kate has a right to receive compensation from Kingston Cool.

Mandy

Mandy

Under the Zone of Danger doctrine, a plaintiff is allowed to recover damages for the harm suffered as a result of defendant's negligence. It must be established that there is a duty owed to the plaintiff. In the matter of Maltman v. Saur (1975) the court ruled that if a defendant owes a duty of care to anyone, he has a duty of to go and rescue the harmed plaintiff. The decision of the court in Wagner v. International Railway (1928) points out that an invitee entering a danger zone is entitled to be rescued. Mandy is a minor who is unable to read and understand the warning signs posted on the wall. The US Supreme Court in Pierce v. the United States,(1920) held that a party has the duty to post clearly-visible warning signs. The court in Moskowitz v. Renaissance at Windsong Creek, Inc.(2000) said that the notice should be reasonable or constructive in that the responsible party should have known of the problem. Therefore, Kingston is liable for the injuries suffered by the minor.

Orena

Orena

The court in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] pointed out a party may intentionally inflict nervous shock to the other. Orena is suffering depression due to the working conditions she is subjected. A person causing emotional distress to the other party is liable as was held in Janvier v Sweeney [1919]. Kingston Cool is responsible for the mental shock she has undergone.

The court in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] set out the ingredients that must be proved by a party claiming to recover damages for the nervous shock. For her to succeed in claiming for damages and violation of her right, she should demonstrate that there exist a duty of care that was breached leading to nervous shock. It should also be demonstrated that the shock was not too remote a consequence of the breach.

Peter, Xiti Ltd, and Roy

Peter, Xiti Ltd, and Roy

Peter has engaged as a contractor to convert the house into a hospital. Roy has a complaint about clogging and noise caused by construction. The court in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) laid down the neighbor principle where it pointed out that a neighbor is a person who might be affected by your actions. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, Peter is liable for the damages caused by Xiti Ltd, who are taken to be his employees as it was held in the case of March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd [1991]. Roy has a right to be compensated for the clogged car as well as damages caused by noise.

Peter, Roy and Kingston Echo

Peter, Roy and Kingston Echo

Peter has right to sue both Kingston echo and Roy for defamatory sentiments shared by the paper. The court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964), pointed out that libel of public officials requires a proof of actual malice. Peter is needed to prove that the defendants made a false and defamatory statement concerning him both in print newspaper and in Facebook. He must also demonstrate that there was a unprivileged publication that was negligently conducted. Peter has the right of way and Roy is not supposed to block the road. Roy is liable for noise pollution because his claim is not justifiable. The Kingston Echo has acted maliciously in publishing the photos of Peter with the aim of lowering his dignity in society and therefore should be held liable.

Conclusion

In tort, both the plaintiff and defendant have a side of their story to be heard. The Plaintiff claims the violation of their right and seeks the court to hold the defendant liable. The court considers the type of tort and age of the parties as well as contributory negligence when apportioning damages. A party that is negligent will be found liable to pay damages for defamation or any loss suffered by the other party.

Bibliography

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310

Butterfield V Forrester (1809) 103 E.R. 926.

Dillingham Constructions Pty. Ltd. v. Steel Mains Pty. Ltd. [1975] HCA 23

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316.

ltman v. Saur 530 P.2d 254 (Wash. 1975)

March v E Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12.

Moskowitz v. Renaissance at Windsong Creek, Inc., 52 Va. Cir. 459 (2000)

National Insurance Co. of New Zealand Ltd. v. Espagne [1961] HCA 15

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Nicol v. Allyacht Spars Pty. Ltd. [1987] HCA 68

Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (1920)

Pokura v. Wabash Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 98 (1934)

Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968)

Sherman v. Nymboida Collieries Pty. Ltd. [1963] HCA 63

Stapley v. Gypsum Mines Ltd. [1953] UKHL 4

Vaughan v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep.490 (C.P. 1837).

Vernon v Bosley (No 1) [1997] 1 All R 577

Wagner v. International Railway 232 N.Y. 176 (1928)

White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509

Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57

Secondary Sources

Day TR, Hall RC. PTSD and Tort Law. Comprehensive Guide to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders. 2016:231-44.

Henderson Jr JA. Learned Hand's Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence Law. Cal. L. Rev.. 2017;105:165.

Little JW, Lidsky LB, O'Connell SC, Lande RH. Torts: Theory and Practice. LexisNexis; 2014.

Persaud N, Ringer T, Lemmens T. How can journals respond to threats of libel litigation?. PLOS Med. 2014 Mar 25;11(3):e1001615.

Robie D, Abcede DM. Cybercrime, criminal libel and the media: From'e-martial law'to the Magna Carta in the Philippines. Pacific Journalism Review. 2015 May;21(1):211.