Tort law (United States)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As tort law, law of torts or often only briefly torts (from Old French tort, in turn from Lat. Tortum of tortus ) is referred to in United States law , a law that deals with the non-contractual liability between private parties.

The area of ​​law is thus defined negatively and includes everything that does not belong to contract law . This essentially, but not exclusively, includes civil law claims for damages due to tortious acts ; it therefore also fulfills a reserve function in relation to criminal law . In contrast to numerous continental legal systems, there is no general liability clause, but only individual liability constellations resulting from case law. Historically these emerged from the system of writs .

Like all civil law in the United States, tort law falls under the jurisdiction of the states, even though it teaches legal training as if there were common American tort law . In almost all states it is not covered by statute law , let alone codified. There is a so-called restatement of law . However, this is not a legal source, but only a descriptive academic summary of the applicable law.

The three subgroups of torts are intentional torts (“willful unlawful acts”), negligence (“negligence”) and strict liability (“ strict liability ”).

history

Historically, the US tort law is based on the English trespass lawsuit (against both land and personal property ) in the 13th century. As a further development stage, this also resulted in tort lawsuits due to battery and assault . The distinction between intentional and non-intentional acts did not develop until later in the 18th century and finally condensed into a general breach of duty in the 19th century .

Intentional torts

For an intentional tort, the plaintiff must bring forward a certain, tort -specific act of the defendant ; the action must be a volitional movement . This specific action must of intent (intent) be supported. The intent can be specific or general. Specific means that the claimant seeks certain outcomes of his actions; generally means that his actions with substantial certainty know about the consequences of his actions. The intent does not require capacity as in contract law : Everyone, including small children, can commit a tort . According to the doctrine of transferred intent , a defendant who wants to commit a certain tort towards a certain person, but commits another intentional tort towards another person , also has an intention . The following case groups are possible:

  1. The defendant commits the same intentional tort against another person;
  2. the defendant commits another tort against the intended person;
  3. the defendant is committing another intentional tort against another person.

The doctrine is limited to certain torts; these are assault, battery, false imprisonment as well as trespass to land and tresspass to chattels .

The most important intentional torts are:

battery
any intentionally harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff by the defendant.
assault
Any willful creation of reasonable apprehension on the part of the plaintiff that direct harmful or injurious contact between the defendant and the plaintiff is imminent.
false imprisonment
any willful act or omission on the part of the defendant that results in the plaintiff being confined or restrained to a bounded area .
intentional infliction of emotional distress
Willful extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant, which puts the plaintiff in severe emotional distress .
tresspass to land
Any willful act on the part of the defendant that causes a physical invasion of the plaintiff's real property .
trespass to chattels
Any willful act of the defendant that causes damage by affecting the plaintiff's right of possession in a movable property (interference with the plaintiff's right of possession in a chattel) .
conversion
Any intentional act by the defendant that causes damage to a movable property through serious interference .

Negligence

The prerequisites for a lawsuit for negligence are:

  1. Duty (required)
  2. Breach (breach of duty)
  3. Causation (causality)
  4. Damages (damage)

Duty

The general duty of conduct under negligence is an objective standard: it requires one to act as a normal, average person would act in the same circumstances. This duty extends to all persons who could be reasonably foreseen as victims, i.e. who were in the zone of danger ( Cardozo in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. ). duty and breach are to be determined as facts by the trier of fact (i.e. judge or jury, if applicable).

The doctrine of negligence per se offers special help for the plaintiff (plaintiff) . According to this doctrine apply duty and breach , suspected to be (according to court rebuttable or irrebuttable) if the defendant an obligation under statute , she was civilly, they have criminally violated. To get the help of this doctrine, the plaintiff must prove two things:

  1. that he belongs to the group of protected persons and
  2. the damage suffered belongs to the group of damage the law seeks to prevent.

In order to avoid liability under this doctrine, the defendant can show that compliance with the legal obligation would have caused greater danger than compliance or compliance with it was beyond his control. The doctrine applies in a variety of states. The plaintiff can also refer to custom, standard (e.g. GAAS for CPAs ), or usage . However, these are not regarded as legal obligations, but rather fall under the general duty standard. Compliance with these standards is a strong presumption for the defendant; her violation as a strong presumption against him, as long as the court does not rule that the entire industry is behaving negligently or the other way around, the deviation from the rules was reasonable under the circumstances . Finally, the doctrine res ipsa loquitur can assist the plaintiff as further help . It does not lead to a presumption and certainly not to a reversal of the burden of proof. The trier of fact can easily consider them refuted. Your requirements are:

  1. The incident is one that usually does not occur, unless a person was negligent,
  2. The negligence can be attributed to the defendant (mostly through exclusive control of the defendant over the circumstances of the accident) and
  3. The plaintiff himself was not the cause of his own injury.

If these requirements are met, the judge cannot issue a directed verdict . The doctrine does not apply to a large number of defendants in control of the circumstances for most courts. The case of Ybarra v. Spangard , 25 Cal. 2d 486 (1944) opposes this as a minority opinion.

Strict liability

In cases of strict liability , the defendant is liable even without evidence of negligence or intent. The most important case groups are liability for animals, liability for abnormally dangerous activity and product liability.

Nuisance

US law recognizes two main forms of nuisance , the private and the nuisance public. Private nuisance is a significant, inappropriate impairment of the use or enjoyment of another person's property; publice nuisance is an act that inappropriately interferes with the health, safety or property rights of the community.

The plaintiff can demand both monetary damages from the defendant of a nuisance action . As an exception, if the nuisance continues , an injunction can also be fought . Unlike in other jurisdictions of the common law is coming to nuisance no defense.

Vicarious liability

As vicarious liability of US law refers to the liability for persons other than the tortfeasor (tortfeasor). The most important possible case groups are:

  1. Employer for employees according to the doctrine Respondeat Superior ;
  2. Client (principal) for the independent contractor (independent contractor);
  3. Vehicle owner for the vehicle driver;
  4. Parents for their children.

Defamation and Reputation Protection

Traditionally, common law regards good repute within a community as an economic good. His violation is therefore protected by the following types of action:

  • defamation in the form of libel and slander , whereby special constitutional requirements apply to public persons.
  • invasion of privacy in particular appropriation, intrusion, false light and public disclosure,
  • mispresentation,
  • interference with business relations,
  • malicious prosecution.

The defendant of a reputation offense can assert absolute privilege as a defense if he has made the testimony in his capacity as a member of the legislature.

literature