Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • >> This episode provides an overview

  • of the three main areas of tort law--

  • intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.

  • Before we get to that overview, though,

  • we need to understand that in our study of tort law,

  • we are going to be making lots of implicit generalizations,

  • because the reality is that tort law

  • varies from state to state.

  • As explained in Episode 1,

  • tort law is a common law subject.

  • Most of tort law has evolved

  • through the holdings of individual court decisions.

  • A published court opinion,

  • arising out of an individual dispute,

  • becomes a precedent, which is applied

  • to future disputes that arise within the same jurisdiction.

  • Tort law is almost exclusively a matter of state law,

  • meaning that each state has developed

  • its own set of precedents

  • applicable within its jurisdiction.

  • In some areas of torts, almost all jurisdictions

  • follow the same basic approach.

  • In other areas of tort law, there are jurisdiction splits,

  • characterized by majority and minority approaches.

  • When a rule or standard is described

  • as the "majority approach,"

  • that means that it is the approach followed

  • by the majority of jurisdictions.

  • Sometimes, particularly on matters of first impression,

  • meaning that there is no precedent on point

  • from the highest court in the relative jurisdiction,

  • courts will also look to holdings

  • from courts in other jurisdictions,

  • and decide whether or not to follow the same approach.

  • Early tort law in the United States

  • borrowed from England, so you'll also see

  • some early English cases cited by American courts.

  • Sometimes, in addition to looking to precedents,

  • courts will also look to something

  • called a "restatement."

  • A restatement is something less than a code.

  • It's not like a statute enacted by a legislature,

  • and it's not like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

  • or even the Uniform Commercial Code

  • that's used in contracts...

  • but a restatement is something more than a treatise,

  • so it's not just another study aid or reference work.

  • The restatements are published by the American Law Institute,

  • an organization of legal academics and practitioners

  • that was founded in 1923.

  • A restatement is essentially an attempt

  • to summarize case law.

  • The ALI takes the whole body of common law--

  • judge-made doctrines that have developed

  • gradually over time--

  • and it tries to synthesize them into a set of rules.

  • Restatements are not binding authority in and of themselves,

  • but they are highly persuasive.

  • They are meant to reflect the consensus

  • of the American legal community as to what the law is,

  • and, in some cases, what it should become.

  • For torts, there are two restatements to keep track of.

  • For most of tort law, the second restatement

  • is the right place to look.

  • The ALI has also promulgated a third restatement,

  • but this one is not comprehensive.

  • It only addresses certain areas of tort law,

  • like products liability.

  • In torts, the restatements have not been as influential

  • as they have been in some other areas of the law,

  • like contracts.

  • For that reason, it is not as crucial

  • to know all of the ins and outs

  • of the restatements for torts,

  • but they can be helpful in figuring out doctrinal issues.

  • We'll use them a fair bit in our discussions

  • of intentional torts and strict liability,

  • but less so for negligence.

  • Now, let's talk about the three main types of tort liability.

  • Tort is not a single cause of action

  • the way that breach of contract is.

  • Rather, it is divided

  • into several different types of claims,

  • or causes of action,

  • all of which may be described as "sounding in tort,"

  • meaning that they are based on tort law principles.

  • Causes of action sounding in tort

  • can be categorized as one of the three main types

  • of tort liability--

  • intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.

  • These categories are based on the differences

  • in the defendant's actions.

  • Intentional torts involve civil liability

  • for harms that are caused more or less deliberately

  • by the defendant.

  • For example, the defendant

  • deliberately hits the plaintiff across the side of the head.

  • Later, in our episode on intent,

  • we will flesh out what "more or less deliberately" means.

  • Intentional torts is an umbrella term

  • for several distinct causes of action,

  • which include battery, assault,

  • false imprisonment, trespass to land,

  • trespass to chattels, conversion, and others.

  • Each of these represents an intentional invasion

  • of the plaintiff's legally protected interest.

  • That might be an interest in being free

  • from harmful, offensive contact with one's person,

  • or in being free from apprehension

  • of harmful or offensive contact,

  • or an interest in freedom of movement,

  • or a possessory interest in property.

  • Negligence is the most common basis for tort suits.

  • This is liability for harms

  • that are not caused by the defendant deliberately,

  • but for which the defendant is at fault,

  • because he or she-- or it, in the case of a business--

  • was careless in some way.

  • For example, the defendant, posing for a picture,

  • backs up into the plaintiff,

  • knocking him into oncoming traffic.

  • Negligence is shorthand for an unreasonable

  • but unintentional interference

  • with the plaintiff's legally protected interest.

  • So, roughly speaking, both intentional torts

  • and negligence are based on wrongdoing

  • or fault on the part of the defendant.

  • Strict liability is something else altogether.

  • It's made up a few exceptional situations

  • where the law assigns liability

  • to the defendant even where the harm

  • was caused by accident, unlike intentional torts,

  • and even where the defendant was careful, unlike negligence.

  • For example, the defendant store owner

  • sells a defectively manufactured blender,

  • which malfunctions, injuring the plaintiff.

  • The defendant store owner may be liable,

  • even though he wasn't responsible

  • for causing the manufacturing defect,

  • and even though he could not reasonably be expected

  • to have discovered the defect before the sale,

  • because the defective blender

  • looked just like all the other blenders

  • it received from the manufacturer.

  • The idea behind strict liability

  • is that the law assigns the costs

  • of any consequences of the defendant's activity,

  • no matter how unexpected or unavoidable,

  • to the defendant.

  • Now, we also need to introduce a different label,

  • and explain that it's not really

  • a distinct TYPE of tort liability,

  • so much as a procedural mechanism

  • for bringing a claim under one of the three types.

  • In some jurisdictions, it's called "wrongful death,"

  • or in others, it might be called a "survival action."

  • Whichever label is used, the idea is the same.

  • A wrongful death or survival action

  • is basically just what happens

  • to a regular tort claim when the victim of the tort dies.

  • Wrongful death and survival actions

  • are made possible by statute.

  • Under the old common law of England,

  • there were three very restrictive rules

  • concerning what happens when a party

  • involved in a tort dies.

  • Keep in mind that these are old rules

  • that you don't need to know now.

  • They simply provide background for understanding

  • why wrongful death and survival actions

  • were not possible under the old common law.

  • One, if the tortfeasor-- the person who committed the tort--

  • died before the victim recovered,

  • the victim's right of action used to die with him.

  • Now, that's no longer true.

  • You can sue the estate of the tortfeasor.

  • Two, if the victim of the tort died

  • from the tort itself or any other cause,

  • before he recovered in tort,

  • the victim's right of action also died.

  • Now, that's no longer true.

  • The estate of the victim, or the victim's relatives,

  • can sue in his place using a wrongful death

  • or survival action.

  • Three, finally, if the tortfeasor

  • caused a victim's death, relatives and dependents

  • of the victim who were deprived of financial support,

  • or suffered emotional loss,

  • did not have a cause of action of their own.

  • Now, that's no longer true.

  • Not only can relatives sue

  • in the place of the deceased victim,

  • using a wrongful death or survival action,

  • claiming the damages that the victim

  • would have been entitled to,

  • but they can also sue in their own right

  • for the harms that they have suffered

  • as a result of the loss of their relative.

  • For all intents and purposes,

  • wrongful death and survival actions

  • work exactly the same way that intentional torts,

  • negligence, and strict liability claims do

  • under the common law.

  • So you'll sometimes see a case

  • that's styled as wrongful death or survival,

  • but the court basically treats it

  • as if it's just another intentional tort,

  • negligence, or strict liability case.

  • For each cause of action, courts have established

  • the basic elements that a plaintiff

  • is required to demonstrate to establish liability.

  • Taken together, these elements make up

  • the prima facie case.

  • For example, battery is an intentional tort

  • cause of action.

  • As we'll discuss in the next episode,

  • it is made up of the following elements--

  • one, the plaintiff must show that the defendant

  • intended to cause harmful or offensive contact.

  • Two, the plaintiff must show that harmful

  • or offensive contact actually occurred.

  • Three, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions

  • caused the plaintiff harm.

  • And four, the plaintiff must establish damages.

  • Also, for each type of liability,

  • courts have recognized affirmative defenses

  • that the defendant can raise.

  • For example, defenses to intentional torts

  • include consent and self-defense.

  • Defenses to negligence include assumption of risk

  • and contributory negligence.

  • The plaintiff has the burden of proof

  • with respect to the prima facie case,

  • for whatever claims he, she, or it, makes.

  • What this means is that for the plaintiff to win,

  • he has to convince a judge that he's going to be able

  • to present sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable jury

  • of facts that would support each of the prima facie elements.

  • If he can't do that, the judge will throw the case out

  • before it even gets to the jury.

  • Then, assuming that the parties are unable

  • to reach a settlement agreement,

  • the plaintiff has to actually convince a real jury

  • to a preponderance of the evidence standard,

  • meaning "more likely than not,"

  • of facts that would support each of the elements.

  • Now, a quick note-- we are saying "jury" here

  • for simplicity's sake, but sometimes, in a bench trial,

  • there is no jury, and the judge also acts as fact-finder.

  • The defendant can respond at each stage

  • in two different ways.

  • "A," by disputing the plaintiff's prima facie case,

  • meaning presenting evidence to counter

  • the plaintiff's argument that the defendant

  • acted intentionally,

  • and/or, "B," by raising affirmative defenses,

  • meaning presenting evidence to show

  • that the defendant was acting in self-defense.

>> This episode provides an overview

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it