Understanding Torts and Liability in the US Legal System

Posted on Dec 9, 2024 in Law & Jurisprudence

Intentional Torts: To constitute an intentional tort, the defendant’s act must be expressly or implicitly intended. The resulting harm need not be intended but must have been reasonably foreseeable. Examples are assault and battery, false imprisonment, slander, and invasion of privacy.

Civil Liability (Liability in Torts)

  • It is a violation of the principle of not causing harm, derived from law in general.
  • Attributes/elements of civil liability:
  • Unlawful Act/Illegal Act/Act Against Law (Antijuridicidad)
    • An act that causes damage.
  • Damages
  • Causation (Relación de causalidad o nexo causal)
    • Proximate Cause: Adequate causation liability.
  • Factors of attribution of responsibility:
    1. Intentional Tort (factor de atribución subjetivo)
    2. Strict Liability (factor de atribución objetivo)

System of Checks and Balances in the US

Fearing the accumulation of excessive power in any one person or group, the Founding Fathers established a system of checks and balances. Overlapping powers impinge upon each area. The President can veto bills passed by Congress and is responsible for selecting federal judges. Congress may override the President’s veto, it may conduct hearings and compel the attendance of witnesses from the executive branch, and the Senate may refuse to confirm the President’s nominees for federal judgeships or for certain high-level positions in the executive branch.

Crime vs. Tort

Crime: A public wrong, committed with intent or by negligence, for which the law provides punishment or recompense to society.

Tort: A private wrong against a person or their property. Aside from certain limited circumstances, all torts arise from either an intentional, wrongful action or from a negligent action.

Crime Tort

1. A public wrong against society.

1. A private wrong against individuals or businesses.

2. “Plaintiff” (prosecutor) is the state (offended person is usually a witness).

2. Plaintiff is an individual or a business.

3. Mostly statutory law.

3. Mostly common law.

4. Prosecutor’s burden of proof: guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Plaintiff’s burden of proof: preponderance of the evidence.

5. Consent is rarely a defense.

5. Consent is usually a defense.

6. No damages are necessary.

6. Damages must be shown.

7. Basis for criminal guilt: an intentional act, and sometimes gross negligence or recklessness.

7. Basis for tort liability: an intentional act, negligence, or strict liability.

Classification of Unlawful Acts

  1. Intentional Torts (Actos ilícitos intencionales)
  2. Negligence
  3. The Obligation and the Reasonable Person Standard (La obligación y el hombre como persona razonable)
  4. Causation (Relación de causalidad o nexo causal)

Additional Theories of Tort Liability in the US Legal System

  1. Res Ipsa Loquitur
  2. Respondeat Superior
  3. Strict Liability

Res Ipsa Loquitur: When a certain type of accident occurs ordinarily because of negligence, and the defendant had exclusive control of the instrument causing the injury (e.g., an airplane that crashed, a scalpel left in a patient’s stomach), a presumption arises that the defendant was negligent. Res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) shifts the onus of coming forward and explaining the occurrence to the defendant. The ultimate burden of proof (looking at the res ipsa loquitur inference and all other evidence), however, remains with the plaintiff.

Respondeat Superior: Respondeat superior is the doctrine by which an employer may be liable for the tortious acts of an employee if the employee was acting within the scope of employment. Of course, regardless of respondeat superior, the employee is liable for their actions. Incidentally, parents generally are not liable for torts committed by their children.

Strict Liability: Under the doctrine of strict liability, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the absence of negligence or intentional wrongful acts. If the defendant was engaged in abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting with dynamite, crop dusting, keeping wild animals), especially activities unusual for that locale, courts and legislatures have decided that they should bear the cost of any harm done. As in other areas of liability without fault (e.g., products liability, workmen’s compensation), the strict liability of some manufacturers or employers is a matter of public policy based on the assumption that these defendants are in a better position to shoulder the costs of injury than are potential plaintiffs.