FACTOID # 6: Michigan is ranked 22nd in land area, but since 41.27% of the state is composed of water, it jumps to 11th place in total area.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
   
 
WHAT'S NEW
RELATED ARTICLES
People who viewed "Negligence" also viewed:
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Negligence
Tort law
Part of the common law series
Negligence
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence  · Eggshell skull
Negligent emotional distress
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Statutory Torts
Product liability  · Ultrahazardous activity
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Property torts
Trespass  · Conversion
Detinue  · Replevin  · Trover
Nuisance
Public nuisance  · Rylands v. Fletcher
Intentional torts
Assault  · Battery  · False imprisonment
Intentional emotional distress
Consent  · Necessity  · Self defense
Dignitary torts
Defamation  · Invasion of privacy
Breach of confidence  · Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Economic torts
Fraud  · Tortious interference
Conspiracy  · Restraint of trade
Liability, Defenses, Remedies
Comparative and Contributory negligence
Last clear chance
Vicarious liability  · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Damages  · Injunction
Common law
Contract law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

Negligence is a legal concept usually used to achieve compensation for injuries (not accidents). Negligence is a type of tort or delict and a civil wrong, but it can also be used in criminal law. Negligence means conduct that is culpable because it misses the legal standard required of a reasonable person in protecting individuals against foreseeably risky, harmful acts of other members of society. Negligent behavior towards others gives them rights to be compensated for the harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or relationships. Negligence is used in comparison to acts or omissions which are intentional or willful. The law of negligence at common law is one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proved in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of this discussion. Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... Not to be confused with torte, an iced cake. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. ... In tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. ... In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. ... Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, The thing itself speaks but is more often translated The thing speaks for itself. The doctrine is applied to tort claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. ... In the United States, the calculus of negligence or learned hand rule is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached (see negligence). ... The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a legal doctrine used in both tort law and criminal law that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from their activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unusual damages due to a pre... The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States jurisdictions. ... The rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that, where a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue... A duty to rescue is a concept in the law of torts that arises in a narrow number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. ... Products liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. ... An ultrahazardous activity in the common law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others... In the law of torts, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who is trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. ... A licensee is a term used in the law of torts to describe a person who is on the property of another, despite the fact that the property is not open to the general public, because the owner of the property has allowed the licensee to enter. ... In the law of torts, an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public, or one whos invited to the land for the purpose of business dealings with the possessor of the land. ... Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the... “Unlawful entry” redirects here. ... In law, conversion is an intentional tort to personal property (same as chattel), where defendants unjustified willful interference with the chattel deprives plaintiff of possession of such chattel. ... In tort law, detinue is an action for the wrongful detention of goods from an individual who has a greater right to immediate possession than the current possessor. ... Replevin is an Anglo-French law term (derived from repletir, to replevy). ... Trover signifies finding. ... Nuisance is a common law tort. ... Nuisance is a common law tort. ... Rylands v. ... An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. ... At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) and volitionally bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them (i. ... False imprisonment is a tort, and possibly a crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority. ... Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a common law tort claim for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress. ... Consent (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible justification against civil or criminal liability. ... In tort law, the defense of necessity is divided between private necessity (where a person commits a tort for the defense of his own property) and public necessity (where a person commits a tort for the public good, such as cutting down someone elses trees to stop the spread... This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ... Slander and Libel redirect here. ... Invasion of privacy is a legal term essentially defined as a violation of the right to be left alone. ... The tort of breach of confidence, is a common law tort that protects private information that is conveyed in confidence. ... Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. ... Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. ... Economic Torts are torts for which employers can sue trade union officials or members who are taking part in industrial action. ... Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiffs contractual or other business relationships. ... In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i. ... At present, the law will not enforce certain types of contracts on the ground of illegality. ... Comparative negligence is a system of apportioning recovery for a tort based on a comparison of the plaintiffs negligence with the defendants. ... Contributory negligence is a common law defence to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. ... The last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of torts that is employed in contributory negligence jurisdictions. ... Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the right, ability or duty to... Volenti non fit injuria is a Latin expression meaning to a willing person, no injury is done. The principle is that someone who knowingly and willingly puts himself in a dangerous situation will be legally disentitled to sue for his or her resulting injuries. ... If you commit a crime, you cannot sue for damages that you experience while committing the crime ... In law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a claimant (as it is known in the UK) or plaintiff (in the US) following their successful claim in a civil action. ... Look up Injunction in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ... In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... For other uses, see Law (disambiguation). ... Not to be confused with torte, an iced cake. ... Delict is a concept of civil law which is used to some degree in many civil law legal systems. ... This article is about civil law within the common law legal system. ... The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. ... Behavior or behaviour refers to the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment. ... The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction that originated in the development of the common law. ... As commonly used, individual refers to a person or to any specific object in a collection. ... Harm can be defined as causing physical or psychological/emotional damage or injury to a person, animal or other entity. ...

Contents

Elements of negligence claims

In appellate court decisions, negligence suits have historically been analyzed in distinct stages. First, the defendant must have had a duty of care towards the claimant. The courts have long established that all persons have a duty to use that degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person would have used under the circumstances, so that, at trial, the existence of the "duty" is predetermined. However, the constitutional right to jury trial on fact questions has established overwhelmingly, at least in the US, that the determination of whether the behavior of a particular defendant in any given case constitutes negligence is ordinarily a unique question of fact for jury determination. [1] Proving negligence does not, alone, support an award of damages. Second, obviously from the definition above, the claimant must show that the defendant has breached that duty by not exercising reasonable care. The plaintiff must further show that the defendant's negligence contributed to cause harm to the claimant. Fourth, the harm must not be too remote a consequence of the negligence; that is, the negligence must be a "proximate cause" of the harm. Finally the claimant must be able to establish what kind of damages, or compensation, he should get for his or her harm. "The broad agreement on the conceptual model," writes Professor Robertson of the University of Texas, "entails recognition that the five elements are best defined with care and kept separate. But in practice," he goes on to warn, "several varieties of confusion or conceptual mistakes have sometimes occurred."[2] In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. ... In law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a claimant (as it is known in the UK) or plaintiff (in the US) following their successful claim in a civil action. ... The University of Texas System comprises fifteen educational institutions in Texas, of which nine are general academic universities, and six are health institutions. ...


Duty of care

Main article: Duty of care
A decomposed snail in Scotland was the humble beginning of the modern law of negligence
A decomposed snail in Scotland was the humble beginning of the modern law of negligence

The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson[3] [1932] illustrates the law of negligence, laying the foundations of the fault principle around the Commonwealth. Mrs Donoghue was given ginger beer by her friend, who bought it from a shop, supplied by Mr Stevenson in Scotland. Mr Stevenson did not know Mrs Donoghue, but the ginger beer he made had a decomposed snail in it which made Mrs Donoghue ill. There was no relationship of contract, as signified by payment, between the person injured and the shop keeper, as the friend had made the payment, and so no legal cause of action in contract was possible. Nor was there a contract or "privity" with the manufacturer, Mr David Stevenson. More importantly, there was no case before about manufacturers harming people through opaque bottles. Lord MacMillan said that we should recognise this new category of tort, (which is really not based on negligence but on what is now known as the "implied warranty of fitness of a product" in a completely different category of tort--"products liability") because it was analogous to previous cases about people hurting each other. Lord Atkin interpreted the biblical passages to 'love thy neighbour,' as the legal requirement to 'not harm thy neighbour.' He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." Reasonably foreseeable harm must be compensated. This is the first principle of negligence. In England the more recent case of Caparo v. Dickman [1990] introduced a 'threefold' test for a duty of care. Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. ... ImageMetadata File history File links Download high resolution version (1024x604, 92 KB) Picture of a grapevine snail (Helix pomatia). ... ImageMetadata File history File links Download high resolution version (1024x604, 92 KB) Picture of a grapevine snail (Helix pomatia). ... Donoghue (or McAlister) v. ... There are various types of faults: In document ISO/CD 10303-226, a fault is defined as an abnormal condition or defect at the component, equipment, or sub-system level which may lead to a failure. ... The Commonwealth of Nations as of 2006 Headquarters Marlborough House, London, UK Official languages English Membership 53 sovereign states Leaders  -  Queen Elizabeth II  -  Secretary-General Don McKinnon (since 1 April 2000) Establishment  -  Balfour Declaration 18 November 1926   -  Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931   -  London Declaration 28 April 1949  Area  -  Total... For other uses, see Snail (disambiguation). ... A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. ... James Richard Atkin, Baron Atkin (November 28, 1867 - June 25, 1944) was an English jurist. ... The House of Lords in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990, House of Lords) adopted at least some of the concerns expressed in different common law courts at the two-stage test set out in Anns v. ...


Breach of duty

See also: Breach of duty in English law
In Bolton v. Stone the English court was sympathetic to cricket players
In Bolton v. Stone the English court was sympathetic to cricket players

Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the second question is whether the duty was breached. The test is both subjective and objective. If the defendant actually realized that the plaintiff/claimant was being put at risk, taking the decision to continue that exposure to the risk of injury breaches the duty. If the defendant did not actually foresee that another might be put at risk, but a reasonable person in the same situation would have foreseen the possibility that another might be injured, there will be a breach. In tort, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that he or she was owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. ... Image File history File linksMetadata Cricket_Scene_Sarhad. ... Image File history File linksMetadata Cricket_Scene_Sarhad. ...


If you unreasonably run a risk and harm to others or their property results, you have breached your duty of reasonable care. An example is the case of Bolton v. Stone[4] which occurred in the English countryside, where cricket balls were seldom hit for six from the pitch, but one day one was. It hit Mrs. Bolton in the head, who was walking nearby. She was hurt but the court said she did not have a claim. 'Reasonable risk' cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. As Lord Denning said in Roe v. Minister of Health[5], the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the professionals in the case, if it was determined according to the scientific standard of the time that possibility was low for the contamination of medical jars, but they were subsequently found to be contaminated. The professionals took reasonable risks and care, even if some patients were harmed. Bolton v. ...


For the rule in the U.S., see: Calculus of negligence In the United States, the calculus of negligence or learned hand rule is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached (see negligence). ...


Factual causation

Main article: Causation (law)

For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred but for, or without, my breach of duty. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increase the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused. Causation is the bringing about of a result, and in law it is an element in various tests for legal liability. ... In the most general sense, a liability is anything that is a hindrance, or puts individuals at a disadvantage. ...


Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business. Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss. ...

See also: Causation in English law and Breaking the chain

In the English law of tort, causation proves a physical link between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s loss and damage. ... In the English law of the tort of negligence, breaking the chain refers to the test of causation because, even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act (or novus actus interveniens) breaks the causal link between that...

Legal causation or remoteness

Negligence can lead to this sort of accident - a train wreck at Gare Montparnasse in 1895.
Negligence can lead to this sort of accident - a train wreck at Gare Montparnasse in 1895.

Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of Cardozo J, "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class." [6] It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. Note that a 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? Image File history File links Size of this preview: 500 × 600 pixelsFull resolution (1750 × 2100 pixel, file size: 531 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) Other versions Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895. ... Image File history File links Size of this preview: 500 × 600 pixelsFull resolution (1750 × 2100 pixel, file size: 531 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) Other versions Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895. ... Train wreck at Gare Montparnasse, Paris, France, 1895 For the American rock band, see Trainwreck (band). ... View of the Gare Montparnasse from the Tour Montparnasse The Gare Montparnasse is one of the six large terminus train stations of Paris, located in the Montparnasse area, in the XVe arrondissement. ... In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. ...


For instance, in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.[7] the judge decided that Mrs. Palsgraf being hit by some weighing scales was too bizarre to be anyone's fault. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor did not help very well. The man fell from the moving train. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. The shockwaves struck some weighing scales causing them to fall, unfortunately, on Mrs. Palsgraf who was standing next to them. [8]Because she was hurt, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence. (She could have sued the man or the conductor himself, but they did not have as much money as the company, known as the "man of straw" principle.) The judge hearing the case ruled that she could not recover any money because the harm was too remote. The conductor did not have a duty of care towards Mrs. Palsgraf and could therefore not be held legally responsible for her injuries. Holding Defendant could not be held liable for an injury that could not be reasonably foreseen. ... A train Conductor // The Conductor is the railway employee charged with the management of a freight, passenger, or various other types of train, and is also the direct supervisor of the trains Train Crew (brakeman, flagman, ticket collector, assistant conductor, on board service personnel). ...


Remoteness takes another form, seen in the Wagon Mound No. 2[9]. The Wagon Mound was a ship in Sydney harbour. The Wagon Mound was a ship which leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf. The UK House of Lords determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner. In Australia, the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of Jaensch v. Coffey.[10] The wife of a policeman, Mrs Jaensch suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the accident. The court upheld in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it also required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the accident. Here there was sufficient causal proximity. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (1966), [1966] 2 All E.R. 709; [1967] 1 A.C. 617; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 498 (P.C.) - also known as Wagon Mound #2 case - is a famous decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on causation... This article is about the metropolitan area in Australia. ...


Damage

Even though there is breach of duty, the negligence suits will not be successful unless there is provable injury. The plaintiff/claimant must have suffered loss or damage flowing naturally from the breach of the duty of care if damages are to be awarded. The damage may be physical (e.g. personal injury), economic (e.g. pure financial loss), or both (e.g. financial loss of earnings consequent on a personal injury), reputational (e.g. in a defamation case), or in relationships where a family may have lost a wage earner through a negligent act. In English law, at least, the right to claim for purely economic loss is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services. A personal injury occurs when a person has suffered some form of injury, either physical or psychological, as the result of an accident. ... Slander and Libel redirect here. ...


Emotional distress has been recognized as compensable in the case of negligence. The state courts of California allowed recovery for emotional distress alone — even in the absence of any physical injury. [11] The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States jurisdictions. ... Official language(s) English Capital Sacramento Largest city Los Angeles Largest metro area Greater Los Angeles Area  Ranked 3rd  - Total 158,302 sq mi (410,000 km²)  - Width 250 miles (400 km)  - Length 770 miles (1,240 km)  - % water 4. ...


Procedures and law in civil law jurisdictions

In civil law systems (as opposed to Common Law) such those found in continental Europe, Quebec, and Puerto Rico, negligence is classified as a form of extra-contractual responsibility, sometimes called a quasi-delict in distinction to the more willful delicts within the conceptual framework of the law of obligations. There are some differences in the comparable laws of negligence in civil law jurisdictions, but the basic principles of delict and quasi-delict are similar albeit established by courts applying the inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial system. So investigative judges or magistrates will interview all parties and witnesses, and then prepare reports to be submitted to a panel of judges for final decision. That decision may also be appealed several levels through a judicial hierarchy. For other uses of civil law, see civil law. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... For other uses, see Europe (disambiguation). ... This article is about the Canadian province. ... Quasi-delict is a French legal term used in civil law jurisdictions, encompassing the common law concept of negligence as the breach of a non-wilful extra-contractual obligation to third parties. ... Delict is a French word and a legal term in civil law which signifies a wilful wrong, similar to the common law concept of tort though differing in many substantive ways. ... The Law of Obligations is one of the component private law elements of the civil law system of law (as well as of mixed legal systems, such as Scotland, South Africa, and Louisiana) and encompasses contractual obligations, quasi-contractual obligations such as enrichment without cause and extra-contractual obligations. ... An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties. ... The adversarial system (or adversary system) of law is the system of law, generally adopted in common law countries, that relies on the skill of each advocate representing his or her partys positions and involves a neutral person, usually the judge, trying to determine the truth of the case. ... In law, an appeal is a process for making a formal challenge to an official decision. ...


Damages

Main article: Damages

Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (the Latin for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of culpability in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim. But, particularly in the U.S., punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded in addition to compensatory damages to reflect the egregious nature of the defendant's conduct, e.g. that the defendant was malicious or callously indifferent. In law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a claimant (as it is known in the UK) or plaintiff (in the US) following their successful claim in a civil action. ... The latin maxim restitutio in integrum (restoration to original condition) is one of the primary guiding principles behind the awarding of damages in common law negligence claims. ... For other uses, see Latin (disambiguation). ... Culpability (Blameworthiness) is the state of deserving to be blamed for a crime or offence. ... Punitive damages are damages awarded to a successful plaintiff in a civil action, over and above the amount of compensatory damages, to: punish the conduct of the civil defendant; deter the civil defendant from committing the invidious act again; and deter others from doing the same thing. ...


Damages are, in general, compensatory and not punitive in nature. This means that the amount paid matches the plaintiff/claimant's actual loss (in cases involving physical injury, the amount awarded should aim to compensate for the pain and suffering). It is not the court's intention to punish the defendant. The award should be sufficient so as to put the plaintiff/claimant back in the position he or she was before the tort was committed and no more, because otherwise the plaintiff/claimant would actually profit from the tort. The award of damages may include the following heads of damage:

  • Special damages - losses suffered from the date of the tort up until the date of trial and which can be precisely quantified in monetary terms.
  • General damages - losses that cannot be quantified exactly in monetary terms (the actual pain, suffering, and loss of amenity caused by the negligent act), as well as expected future losses from the date of trial (e.g. continuing pain and suffering, and loss of earnings). Where the plaintiff/claimant proves only negligible loss or damage, or the court is unable to quantify the losses, the court may award nominal damages.
  • Punitive damages - are awards of amounts greater than those needed to compensate the victim and are intended to deter intentional, usually malicious, wrongdoing. They are not available where only negligence has been proved.

Damages, in law has two different meanings. ... Damages, in law has two different meanings. ... In law, damages refers to the money paid or awarded to a claimant (as it is known in the UK) or plaintiff (in the US) following their successful claim in a civil action. ... Punitive damages are damages awarded to a successful plaintiff in a civil action, over and above the amount of compensatory damages, to: punish the conduct of the civil defendant; deter the civil defendant from committing the invidious act again; and deter others from doing the same thing. ...

See also

Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal... Medical malpractice is an act or omission by a health care provider which deviates from accepted standards of practice in the medical community and which causes injury to the patient. ... For other uses, see Malpractice (disambiguation). ... The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ... Intentionality, originally a concept from scholastic philosophy, was reintroduced in contemporary philosophy by the philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano in his work Psychologie vom Empirischen Standpunkte. ...

Footnotes

  1. ^ http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/77-2/Kelley%20FINAL3.pdf
  2. ^ Deakin, Tort Law, 218
  3. ^ Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 532
  4. ^ Bolton v. Stone [1951] A.C. 850
  5. ^ Roe v Minister of Health (1954) 2 AER 131
  6. ^ Ultramares Corp. v. Touche(1931) 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441
  7. ^ Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. (1928) 162 N.E. 99
  8. ^ Interestingly, Mrs. Palsgraf's physical injuries were minor and were almost certainly caused by the stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. These details have not, however, stopped the case from becoming the source of extensive debate in American tort law.
  9. ^ Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty [1966] 2 All E.R. 709
  10. ^ Jaensch v. Coffee (1984) 155 CLR 578
  11. ^ See Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968) and Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980).

Donoghue (or McAlister) v. ... Bolton v. ... In the English law of tort, Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 AER 131 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has had a significant influence on the common law throughout the common law world. ... Holding Defendant could not be held liable for an injury that could not be reasonably foreseen. ...

References

  • Deakin, Simon; Angus Johnston; Basil Markesinis (2003). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199257116. 

External links

  • Perry, Ronen, "Relational Economic Loss: An Integrated Economic Justification for the Exclusionary Rule", Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 711-88, Spring 2004
  • Negligence - Encyclopedic Article

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m