Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) [citation needed] It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to ...
Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955) is an American tort law case that illustrates the principle of "intent" for intentional torts. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] Background
A loss or injury to the client caused by the negligence, and Financial loss or injury to the client. To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ( "but for" causation ). [ 3 ]
The Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ and Danckwerts LJ, held unanimously that since Mr Cooper's actions were negligent rather than intentional, the statute of limitations barring claims actions for damage caused by negligence applied, meaning that Mrs. Letang could not recover as she had filed suit too late.
Conversion (law) – An intentional tort to personal property where the defendant's willful interference with the chattel deprives plaintiff of the possession of the same. Nuisance – Denial of quiet enjoyment to owners of real property. A private nuisance is an unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful interference with another person's private ...
Historically, most actions alleging vicarious liability for intentional torts failed, primarily on the grounds that no employer employs an individual to be dishonest, or to commit crimes. [58] This was the view taken with regard to most intentional torts, with several exceptions.
In a majority opinion by Justice Stevens, the Court noted that the injury arose from two claims: negligence by Carr's co-workers and assault by Carr. In United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the intentional tort exception did not apply when prison guards were negligent in preventing a prisoner from assault ...