Welcome to fletrix.com on January 7 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Intentional tort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Scales of justice
Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment
Property torts
Trespass (land · chattels)
Conversion
Detinue · Replevin · Trover
Defenses
Consent · Necessity
Defense of: (Self · Others · Property)
Privilege of: (Arrest · Discipline)
Recapture of property
Recovery of land
Negligence
Duty of care · Standard of care
Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Specific types Employment-related · Entrustment
Malpractice (legal · medical)
Liability torts
Product liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance
Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation · Invasion of privacy
False light · Breach of confidence
Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud · Tortious interference
Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative / contributory negligence
Last clear chance · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Neutral reportage · Damages
Injunction
Duty to visitors
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence
Property · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence tort, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed.

[edit] Why intentional torts are different

As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. In order to preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing.

[edit] How to tell the difference

The key difference between intentional torts and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific mens rea or mental state of intentionally performing the act which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Under doctrines such as transferred intent, the plaintiff need not always prove that the defendant acted with the intent to bring about the specific injury that actually occurred.

Not every intentional action qualifies as an intentional tort. Suppose an investor holding more than half of a corporation's stock votes on changes the other stockholders find detrimental. If the other stockholders suffer damages as a result, this is not a tort, as the powerful investor had a right to vote whichever way he liked. Thus, the other stockholders cannot sue the aforementioned investor for damages. If, on the other hand, John Doe physically attacks a passerby in the street, and as a result the passerby incurs medical bills, John is liable for these costs, as he is guilty of the tort of battery.

To find a defendant liable for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant performed the action leading to the damages the plaintiff alleges, and that the defendant acted with purpose, or that he had knowledge with substantial certainty that an act would result in a tortious result. Furthermore, the action must be a recognized "wrongful act." A famous case in the 1800s involved a hemophiliac child (Vosburg) who was kicked by another child (Putney) at school, resulting in severe disability of the leg. Although the kicker could not have reasonably foreseen that the kick would cause severe disability, he certainly could have foreseen that it would cause discomfort, and was found liable.

For example, a plaintiff attempting to prove that a defendant committed the intentional tort of battery must fulfill several factors:

(1) Intent, (2) an Act, (3) Cause, and (4) Harmful or offensive contact.

Here, "intent" means either purpose or "knowledge with substantial certainty," as elucidated in Garratt v. Dailey. "Cause" in an intentional tort need only be "actual cause;" that is, but for the defendant's action the tortious result would not have occurred. The plaintiff need not allege or prove proximate cause, which would indicate that the result of the defendant's actions was reasonably foreseeable.

Common law intentional torts include:

[edit] Property torts

Property torts are a specific class of intentional torts which arise when the right invaded is a property right rather than a personal right. These include trespass to land (entering someone's land without permission), trespass to chattels (handling items owned by another without permission), and conversion (taking possession of someone else's property with the intent not to return it). Some older, and largely obsolete, property law concepts include detinue, replevin, and trover.

Personal tools

Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs