Write an essay on intentional and negligent torts.

Situations are very few and far between in which a person can be held liable for an act or omission which is in no way attributable to his fault. Tortious wrongs are therefore broadly classified as either intentional or negligent. Where the aggrieved party is a victim of an intentional wrong, the aggrieved party must ground his action in an intentional tort. Where the aggrieved party suffers due to a negligent act or omission of another, the aggrieved party must ground his action in negligence.

Intention in tort is different from that in criminal law. In criminal law, intention refers to three ideas: the defendant must foresee the natural consequences of his conduct; he must desire the consequences; and he must do something to bring about those consequences. Thus, where a person drives a car recklessly knocking down a pedestrian and causes his death, he is not liable for murder but only for involuntary manslaughter because he lacks the intention to cause the death or grievous bodily harm of the pedestrian.

Historically, tort law has developed differently. First, success in intentional torts, for example, assault, battery and false imprisonment, depends on establishing a direct injury. Secondly, the plaintiff, in the sam

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

For example, where the defendant drives his car onto the plaintiff’s land, mistakenly thinking that to be his land, he nevertheless commits an intentional tort – trespass to land. Perhaps the plaintiff’s statement of claim was so phrased because the plaintiff was only concerned to establish a direct injury which was considered to be the only require to success in trespass to the person. ”

According to Winfield and Jolowicz, negligence ‘is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant negligently drove his Jaguar over her legs, causing injury to her. Secondly, if that was the case, the next enquiry would be whether there were any reasons which ought to ‘negative’, or to ‘reduce’ or ‘limit’ the defendant’s liability. Thus, if the plaintiff wishes to sue in trespass, he must establish not only that the act of the defendant was direct but also that his act was wilful. In Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the House of Lords held that the police would not be liable for death or injury to a person arising from its failure to control the conduct of a criminal at large.

In Letang v Cooper, the plaintiff was sunbathing on a piece of grass. Donoghue v Stevenson was decided in 1932 and has now become the progenitor of all actions in negligence embracing a vast range of varied situations of fact. The plaintiff sued for damages for: (1) the negligence of the defendant in driving a motor car and (2) the commission by the defendant of a trespass to the person. In Fowler v Lanning, the plaintiff sustained personal injuries from a shot fired by the defendant. the tort of sexual harassment, is in a principle member of this group. It was not contingent upon the act being intentional or negligent, though inevitable accident was a defence. Section 27(5) provides that if the person injured dies before the expiration of the period of three years, the period as respects the cause of action surviving for the benefit of the estate of the deceased shall be from death, or the date of the personal representative’s knowledge whichever is the later.

Approximate Word count = 2260
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.