Law of Torts in Common Law

The area of law concerned with non-contractual liability, where individuals are held accountable for actions causing harm to others.

A type of legal liability that arises from actions, regardless of any specific agreements or contracts.

A legal system where a set of specific torts, or wrongful acts, are identified and their consequences are determined by legal precedent.

A modern approach which recognizes a general tort of negligence, where liability can be established based on a breach of a duty of care.

A legal system where civil liability is determined by a comprehensive list of rights and their violations, defined in a code.

When a party is held liable for damages caused by an action, even if there wasn't a specific contract.

A legal system where liability is established through the analysis of specific facts and legal precedent.

Compensation for damages can be sought based on either a contract or a tort, but not both for the same incident.

A civil wrong that involves harmful or offensive conduct that results in injury to another person, their property, or their reputation.

A type of tort that involves false statements that damage someone's reputation.

A type of tort that involves a direct and immediate interference with a person's body or property.

A type of trespass that involves a direct and immediate interference with a person's body.

A type of trespass that involves a direct and immediate interference with a person's goods.

A type of trespass that involves a direct and immediate interference with a person's land.

A type of tort that involves a negligent act that causes harm to another person.

A type of action in a court of law that can be used to claim compensation for damages caused by negligence or other torts.

An early legal remedy focused on direct, intentional harm to persons, goods, or land.

Involves a violation of a duty of care that results in harm to another person, regardless of intent. This duty of care is based on reasonable behavior and is not limited to specific professions.

The party claiming harm (the plaintiff) does not need to prove the defendant acted intentionally. Instead, the defendant needs to show they acted with due care.

Certain offenses were originally punished through the writ of trespass. The writ of trespass upon the case, however, was created to handle offenses that were not directly related to physical injury, such as slander or negligent actions.

The creation of new legal remedies became restricted after 1258, prompting courts to apply existing remedies to new situations.

The evolution of legal remedies from specific writs to the more general concept of tort of negligence enabled better protection against harm.

Tort of negligence became the most common type of tort because it's broader, easier to prove, and offers protection beyond the more specific writs of trespass.

A legal obligation to take reasonable care to prevent harm to others. It's the foundation for negligence claims.

The defendant's action that falls below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in that situation. Essentially, they did something wrong.

The actual loss or harm suffered by the plaintiff as a direct result of the defendant's negligence. It can be physical, emotional, or financial.

The link between the defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's damage. The damage must be a direct consequence of the negligence, not too remote or unexpected.

The landmark case that established the concept of a general duty of care in negligence law. Mrs. Donoghue sued a manufacturer for a defective ginger beer that made her ill. The court ruled that the manufacturer had a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury to consumers.

The defendant's negligence must be the proximate cause of the damage. This means that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

The plaintiff must show that the damage suffered was not too remote from the defendant's negligent action. If the damage was highly improbable or unlikely to be caused by the defendant's action, it may be considered too remote.

A legal principle that establishes a duty of care owed to anyone who could be reasonably affected by your actions. This duty involves taking care to avoid harming others, considering potential risks and consequences.

A test used to determine if a duty of care exists. It asks whether a reasonable person could foresee the harm that might result from their actions to another person.

A legal concept where a manufacturer is held accountable for harm caused by a defective product to the consumer. This responsibility arises from the manufacturer's duty of care and the foreseeable risk of injury posed by the product.

Prior to the development of duty of care principles, consumers had no recourse against manufacturers for defective products, even if those products caused harm. The legal landscape has shifted significantly to hold manufacturers responsible.

A US case that served as a landmark in expanding the concept of manufacturer's liability. It determined that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its products, even if there's no direct contract.

The potential economic impact of tort of negligence claims and compensation has led to a cautious approach in its application to manufacturers. The courts strive to balance the interests of consumers seeking compensation with the economic stability of manufacturers.

Lord Hopkin's contributions to the law of negligence expanded the scope of duty of care beyond specific professions or public duties. He highlighted the importance of foreseeing potential harm to others and taking reasonable care to avoid it.

A principle in French law stating that everyone is responsible for damages they cause to another, regardless of a contract. It holds that harm caused by negligence or imprudence creates an obligation to repair the damage.

The French approach assumes all damage, whether from a breach of contract or a wrongful act, should be compensated. This general rule emphasizes proactive responsibility to mitigate harm and offers wide-ranging remedies for individuals in case of damages.

The idea that any action by an individual that causes damage to another obligates the individual at fault to repair it. This underscores the emphasis on responsibility and reparations in French civil law.

The French approach to liability starts with a general rule and then applies it to specific cases. This creates a system of legal reasoning that emphasizes broad legal principles and their application to individual situations.

The English case Donoghue v Stevenson established the principle of negligence as a general tort. This landmark decision allowed judges to hold individuals liable for negligence-related harm to others, even without an existing category for that specific type of harm.

This approach in French law focuses on specific elements to establish responsibility. It requires a wrongful act, causality, and damages that meet specific criteria. This framework ensures fairness and consistency in determining liability.

French law does not have a fixed list of rights and their violations, unlike some systems. It instead relies on general principles like 'Nenimem Laedere' and its application to specific cases. This approach prioritizes flexibility and adaptation to evolving societal norms.