TORT LAW

PRESENTED BY GROUP 9
WHAT IS TORT LAW
• The law of torts is a body of law that addresses civil wrongs or injuries caused by one
person to another. Torts can result in legal liability for the person who commits the
tortious act, and can lead to damages being awarded to the injured party
• Forms part of common law
• Civil wrongs come in three ways:
• through an intentional act that harms the body
and or property and includes assault, battery or trespass to land, through
negligence which unintentionally causes harm to C person or property
Or
economic injury to persons who we owe duty of care, and through defamation
For an act to amount to a tort it must be categorized as unlawful behavior by the
tortfeasor, the behavior must interfere with the interest of another which is
protected by the law, and the victim should be allowed to seek redress.
 ELEMENTS OF TORTS
• 1. Duty: The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. This means that
the defendant was required to act in a certain way towards the plaintiff, and
that the plaintiff was entitled to expect a certain standard of care from the
defendant.
• 2. Breach: The defendant breached that duty by acting or failing to act. This
means that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care that was owed to
the plaintiff, and that their actions or inactions caused harm to the plaintiff.
• 3. Causation: The defendant's breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injury.
This means that the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred if the
defendant had not breached their duty of care.
• 4. Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or injury as a result of the
defendant's breach. This means that the plaintiff must have suffered some
type of physical, emotional, or financial harm as a result of the defendant's
actions or inactions.
TYPES OF TORTS
• 1. Intentional torts: These are torts that are committed intentionally,
such as assault, battery, and false imprisonment. These torts are
committed with the intention of causing harm to the plaintiff.
• 2. Negligence: These are torts that result from a failure to exercise
reasonable care, such as car accidents caused by reckless driving.
These torts are committed unintentionally, but as a result of the
defendant’s negligence.
• 3. Strict liability: These are torts where the defendant is held liable
regardless of fault, such as product liability cases. In these cases, the
defendant may not have acted negligently or intentionally, but they are
still held liable for the plaintiff's injuries.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORT AND
CONTRACT
• The law of torts is different from the law of contracts in that
torts involve a breach of duty or injury to another person,
while contracts involve a breach of an agreement between
two parties. In other words, torts involve a violation of a legal
duty owed to another person, while contracts involve a
violation of an agreement between two parties.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORT AND
CRIME
• Torts and crimes are also different in that crimes are offenses
against the state or society, while torts are offenses against
individuals. Crimes are punishable by criminal law, while
torts are punishable by civil law.
NEGLIGENCE
• GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
• Negligence is a type of tort that occurs when a person fails to exercise reasonable
care, resulting in injury or harm to another person.
• To succeed in an action in negligence, plaintiff must establish the ff:
• There exists a legal duty
• There was a breach of that duty and damages resulted from the breach (Alhassa
Kotokoli v Moro Hausa [timber truck ride])
• Where a duty of care is not expressly directed to the plaintiff, it includes him if he is
one of a class affected by the want of care [policeman was a lawful user of the
highway] (Haynes v Harwood)
• If what is relied, on as
• novus actus interveniens is the very kind of thing which is likely to happen if the
want of care which is alleged in the case takes place, then it is no defence to say
that there has been a novus actus interveniens (Haynes v Harwood [policeman and
NEGLIGENCE
• A test of negligence is reasonable foreseeability. The damage inflicted
on a plaintiff by a defendant should have been reasonably foreseeable
by the defendant
• there is no such thing as negligence in the air; liability only arises
where there is a duty to take care and where failure in that duty has
caused damage. (King v Phillips)
THE CONCEPT OF DUTY OF CARE
• The concept of duty of care
• Want of attention, amounting to a want of ordinary care, is not a good
cause of action, although injury ensues from such want, unless the
person charged with such want of ordinary care had a duty to the
person complaining. (Heaven v Pender [ship painter])
• Whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position
with regard to another that anyone of ordinary sense who did think
would at once recognise that, if he did not use ordinary care and skill
in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances, he would cause
danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to
use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger. (Heaven v Pender)
• For a duty of care to exist there must be “reasonable foreseeability,”
close and direct relationship of “proximity” between the parties and it
must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. (Caparo
Industries v Dickman)
• Rescue Principle” If a person chooses to do an act the ordinary
consequence of which is that damage may ensue, the damage must be
on his own head. (Cutler v United Dairies)
• To give a cause of action, shock must be the result of a fear of
immediate personal danger to one’s self. (Bourhill v Young principle
upheld in King v Phillips)
• To give rise to a cause of action the act which terrifies must be either
wilful or negligent. (Dulieu v White)
NERVOUS SCHOCK
• Mere fright not followed by consequent physical damage will not
support an action, but if it is followed by consequent physical damage,
then, if the fright was the natural result of the defendant’s negligence,
action lies, and the physical damage is not too remote to support it.
(Dulieu v White [pregnant woman, carriage driven into a bar])
• Where there is a legal duty on the defendant not to frighten the
plaintiff by his negligence, then fright with consequent physical
damage will support an action (Dulieu v White)
PECUNIARY LOSS
• In case of a wrong done to a chattel, the common law does not
recognize a person whose only rights are a contractual right to have
the use or services of the chattel for purposes of making profits or
gains without possession or property in the chattel. (Leigh & Sullivan
v Aliakmon Shipping Co.)
THE INJURY REQUIREMENT AND DAMAGES
To recover damages (receive compensation), the plaintiff in a tort
lawsuit must prove that she suffered a legally recognizable injury.

The purpose of tort law is not to punish people for the torts that they
commit but to compensate injured parties for damages suffered.

1. Compensatory damages are intended to compensate , or reimburse,

2. Occasionally, punitive damages are awarded to punish the wrongdoer