Blighs Claims and Liabilities in Tort Case Study

Blighs Claims and Liabilities in Tort - Case Study Example Tort may include that this personal violation or wrong can be negligent or intentional such as battery or defamation of character. Torts can also be violations of personal property as well. Strictly speaking, torts are called civil wrongs as opposed to criminal wrongs. However, torts like battery can be both a tort and a crime and the defendant can face both civil and criminal penalties. Torts may be committed with force or without force to the person or to the property in possession. Tort laws have been enacted to provide relief for the damages incurred and deter others from committing the same injurious acts. Under most tort laws, a person can sue for an injunction to stop the continuation of an injurious act or for monetary damages. Under Tort law, a person can also sue for loss of earnings capacity, pain and suffering, and reasonable medical expenses in the present and projected into the future. Some of the more specific torts include trespass, assault & battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Tort liability fall into three categories: intentional, negligent and liability. (i) Negligence: Negligence is a tort which depends on the existence of a breach of duty of care owed by one person to another. In order to claim damages under 'negligence', the following conditions must have been satisfied. In the above case, the de... b) The defendant breached the duty of care c) Breach causing harm in fact d) The injury / loss was caused by the breach and damages need to be awarded e) Breach being a proximate or not too remote a cause, in law In the above case, the defendant Mr. Hood had negligently left the keys in the ignition, because of which, Mr. Fletcher took the cruiser without Mr. Hood's permission and hit Mr. Bligh's barge. This has resulted in damage to the property of Mr. Bligh. If Mr. Hood had properly locked it, and had not left the keys in the ignition itself, the damage wouldn't have happened. As such, 'negligence' has provided a cause of action against Mr. Hood. In Donoghue v. Stevenson's case , Mrs Donoghue could sue the manufacturer of Ginger Beer for negligence, since he had not exercised due care in checking the contents of Ginger Beer which had decomposed snail in it. (ii) Vicarious Liability: It is not sure whether Mr. Fletcher is an employee of Mr. Hood. If he is an employee of Mr. Hood, Mr. Bligh can claim damages from Mr. Hood under Vicarious liability as well. "Since his employee harmed the barge of Mr. Bligh in the course of his employment, he is required to bear responsibility for it. In one of the tort cases, the conductor of a bus drove the bus negligently and injured a pedestrian. The court ruled that the owner of that bus is liable for conductor's irresponsible act, since the accident happened during the course of employment. (iii) Intangible Economic Interests / Monitory loss: Because of the above act of Mr. Fletcher, the barge was damaged and took a day to repair. As a result, Mr. Bligh was unable to use it to carry on his transport business and lost a day's profit, there being no other barge available. Mr. Bligh, can claim the monitory loss