|
Torts are an integral part of our lives, believe it or not. The name itself lends nothing to understanding what they are about, but they do mean a lot to everything that happens in our lives.
A tort is best defined as a civil wrong which the victim seeks remedy for, in the form of some kind of damages. Examples of a tort would be assault, battery, false imprisonment and negligence. Torts can also be intentional or unintentional and that changes how they are pursued in terms of litigation and damages received for the tort committed.
An intentional tort means exactly what it sounds like -- the tortfeasor, person who committed the tort, intended to commit the act or bring about a particular response or consequence. The desire to harm a person is not necessary but the tortfeasor must have been aware that the actions would lead to a particular result.
Battery is an intentional tort against a person and is the infliction of a harmful or offensive contact upon that person. Whether the tortfeasor actually harms the person is regardless since the desire to harm by making contact, and following through on making contact, is what is required.
Assault is the intentional causing of fear or apprehension of harm to come, regardless of whether any contact was made. Battery requires contact while assault does not. Assault has its roots in the reaction it causes in the victim. If you attempt to strike someone with your hand and you miss, you can still be charged with assault for you did intend to do such a thing but merely misjudged your ability to do so. For a plaintiff, the one filing the complaint, to allege assault, he or she must have been aware of the potential threat. If someone else saw an attacker lunge at you with a knife while you did not, you may not claim assault. Now, if an attacker means to cause fear in you but ends up causing fear in another person who believes they will be harmed, they may claim the transferred intent doctrine. Since the initial victim did not fear anything but someone else nearby became a potential victim. And it does not matter if the attacker had no intent of harming the other person, it still happened and the attacker can be held liable.
False imprisonment is a tort committed when a person intentionally confines another person. Confinement is defined as someone who is unable to leave an area if there is not way out or the only way to escape is to risk further harm to themselves. Physical force is also not required for false imprisonment to be valid. Body language alone, implying the confined person may not leave, is enough grounds for false imprisonment. Law enforcement personnel are most likely to be accused of this tort. Since they must restrain people in the line of duty, they are at risk of being accused of such a thing. But they are valid in their defense, in most cases, that they can do such a thing.
|
| |
