Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An intentional tort requires an overt act, some form of intent, and causation. In most cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. [31]
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable ...
Another category of birth-related malpractice, [7] more closely related to wrongful abortion, consists of cases in which a woman seeks medical advice regarding the health of her fetus, and decides to conceive or to continue her pregnancy once the adviser maintains that the fetus will not be born with congenital disabilities, a statement that is ...
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) [1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. [2]
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976): A case in which a patient told his psychiatrist that he had thoughts of killing a girl. Later he did kill the girl. A leading case in defining the standard of the duty of care, and the duty to warn. Trimarco v. Klein, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 ...
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. [1]
Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation.
The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts – intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases – as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim – if a trespasser 's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack , the trespasser will ...