1) What is tort law? Why do we need tort law?

The word ‘tort’ derives from the Latin tortus, meaning crooked or twisted, and the Norman-French tort, meaning wrong. In English law we use the word tort to denote certain civil wrongs as distinct from criminal wrongs.

A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of trust or breach of contract. The law of tort, therefore, provides remedies for the: 1) intentional and direct interference with another's person, property or land (trespass); 2) indirect interference with another's land (nuisance); 3) unintentional and careless interference with another's person or property (negligence); 4) slighting of another's reputation (defamation). It also protects more specialized interests (e.g. business and economic interests), and has specific rules regarding liability for premises and animals.

2) What is difference between crime and tort?

Crime Any act of an individual or a group that is harmful to others, the society, or the state in general is considered a crime that is punishable by a court of law. There are written laws made by legislators that apply to all citizens of a country and they have to be followed in letter and spirit by the people. A crime is said to have been committed when there is a violation of any of the laws of the land. Tort When there is a dispute between individuals, that takes a legal shape, it constitutes a tort. One individual commits a wrong against another individual where the victims is injured or harmed. The victim can bring a law suit against the perpetrator of the tort to seek redressal of their harm through financial compensation. In general, a tort is a civil wrongdoing and involves cases where a person’s behavior or action causes injury or harm to another individual or many persons. A tort may not be a crime but is still considered a wrongdoing that requires compensation to be paid to the victim by the person committing tort.

• While the focus is on punishment of criminal in a crime, the focus is on financial compensation in the case of torts.

• Instead of moral wrong as in crime, the personal injury caused to an individual takes precedence in a tort.

• Public interest is a part of crime while it is only private interest in case of a tort.

• Aggrieved party is the initiator of the proceedings in a law court while in case of a crime the case is initiated by the state.

• In a crime, a defendant has a right to a counsel while, in a tort, there is no such right for the defendant.

• Some of the crimes are torts while some of the torts may not be crimes.

3) What relief can a victim of tort obtain?

The object of proceedings in tort is not punishment, but compensation or reparation to the claimant, previously designated as the plaintiff for the loss or injury caused by the defendant, i.e. damages. The same facts may disclose a crime and a tort.

The general rule is that anyone of full age may sue and be sued in tort. At common law the maxim ‘The King can do no wrong’ applied until 1947. The Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, altered the common law, and section 2(1) now provides that ‘the Crown shall be subject to all those liabilities in tort to which, if it were a person of full age and capacity, it would be subject.

The Crown is not liable for torts committed by the police by other public officers who are appointed and paid by local authorities, or by members of public corporations such as the Coal Board, Gas Board, and Electricity Board.

Judges have absolute immunity for acts within their judicial capacity. This immunity probably also applies to justices of the peace acting within their jurisdiction. Counsel and witnesses have similar immunity in respect of all matters relating to the case with which they are concerned. A foreign sovereign is not liable in tort in the English courts of law unless they submit to the jurisdiction, thereby waiving their immunity from legal process. They may however, sue in an English court. Ambassadors, High Commissioners and certain other diplomats cannot be sued in tort during their terms of office.

4) How can torts be classified?

Torts may be classified into three broad categories:

1) Intentional torts such as battery

2) Unintentional torts such as negligence in a slip and fall case

3) Strict liability torts such as those involving ultrahazardous materials that are dangerous in and of themselves

Torts are categorized under civil laws, rather than criminal laws. This means that some torts may involve conduct that is not necessary illegal, but causes harm to another person. However, some tort cases may involve an overlap with criminal laws (such as assault).

Some common examples of torts include:

• Negligence-related claims

• Civil assault/civil battery

• Wrongful death claims

• Trespassing

• Products liability and dangerous products

• Intentional inflection of emotional distress

Probably the most common type of tort lawsuit is negligence. In order to prove negligence, the victim needs to prove that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to them, and that the breach was the cause of their injuries or losses. 

For instance, if the defendant had a duty to keep their shop floor clean, but failed to do so, the plaintiff may be able to sue them if they were injured due to a slip on the dirty shop floor.

5) Is it a tort when you injure someone by not being careful? How does a plaintiff prove that a defendant has been negligent? What requirements should be proved in order to make an action for negligence successful?

Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care where a duty to do so exists, and where that failure causes recoverable loss or damage to the person to whom the duty is owed. Therefore, negligence is more precise than simple carelessness, and is only actionable upon proof of damage. Negligence emerged as a distinct tort from the tort of trespass. Five requirements must be met for negligence liability to arise:

1) The damage suffered by the claimant must disclose a cause of action;

2) The defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care;

3) The defendant must have been in breach of that duty;

4) The breach of duty must have been a cause in fact of the claimant's damage;

5) The claimant's damage must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach.