Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (May 2009)

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass (land · chattels) Conversion · Detinue Replevin · Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent · Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of care · Standard of care Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Specific types Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) Employment-related · Entrustment Malpractice (legal · medical)
Liability torts
Product liability Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation · Invasion of privacy False light · Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections · Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud · Tortious interference Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
Liability, remedies
Last clear chance · Eggshell skull Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage · Damages Injunction · Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence Property · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v • d • e

United States tort law comprises all of the various tort laws of the states. Torts generally fall into one of three classifications: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

[edit] Intentional torts

Intentional torts include those actions that are intentional and voluntary and that are made with knowledge and intent by the tortfeasor (in other words, the person who committed and bears legal responsibility for the tort) upon the plaintiff (the one who brings the complaint seeking relief). Plaintiffs in such causes of action are not necessarily limited to those parties directly affected by the harm; for example third party relatives of a deceased or certain other interested persons may bring a wrongful death action against an alleged tortfeasor. Intentional torts include: battery, assault (apprehension of harmful or offensive contact), false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), invasion of privacy, fraud, defamation of character (includes libel, which is written defamation of character and slander, which is non-written defamation of character), malicious prosecution, abuse of process, the real property tort of trespass to land, and the personal property torts of conversion and trespass to chattels.

[edit] Trespass

• Intel Corp. v. Hamidi 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003)

[edit] Assault and battery

• Katko v. Briney', 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971)

[edit] Defamation

• Barrett v. Rosenthal
• Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
• Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.
• Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
• Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co.
• McDonald v. Smith
• Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
• Near v. Minnesota
• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
• Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
• Reynolds v. Pegler
• Time, Inc. v. Firestone
• Westmoreland v. CBS
• John Peter Zenger

[edit] Negligence

Amongst unintentional torts one finds negligence as being the most common source of common law, most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most American courts (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages. That is, but for the tortfeasor's act or omission, the damages to the plaintiff would not have been incurred, and the damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct.

Duty of care

• MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

• Martin v. Herzog, 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920)
• Tedla v. Ellman, 280 N.Y. 124, 19 N.E. 2d 987, (1939) on negligence per se, or the violation of a duty under a statute
• Seong Sil Kim v. New York City Transit Authority, duty of care to a person who may have been attempting suicide.

Breach of duty

• United States v. Carroll Towing Co., the "negligence calculus" test devised by Learned Hand. Reasonable behavior is meant to be a balancing act between the gravity of harm and the probability that harm will occur against the cost of being more careful.
• Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 (1982), decided that customary conduct is not conclusive (although it is good evidence) of what will be reasonable.

Causation

• Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1931), on proximate cause in negligent misstatement cases

[edit] Emotional distress

• Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. 232 Cal. Rptr 688 (1986)

[edit] Medical malpractice

• Ewing v. Goldstein
• Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

• Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1914), the principle of informed consent before operations

• Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983)

[edit] Public authorities

• Dolan v. United States Postal Service, post office immune under the Federal Tort Claims Act
• Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), US immune from suit from members of the military

• Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. (1981) holding that the police were not responsible for failing (though repeatedly warned) to respond to calls and arrest people committing crimes

Some jurisdictions recognize one or more designations less than actual intentional wrongdoing, but more egregious than mere negligence, such as "wanton", “reckless” or “despicable" conduct. A finding in those states that a defendant's conduct was "wanton," “reckless” or “despicable”, rather than merely negligent, can be significant because certain defenses, such as contributory negligence, are often unavailable when such conduct is the cause of the damages.

[edit] Damages

Joint liability

• Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 489 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Comparative negligence

• Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 532 P.2d 1226, 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975),

Punitive damages

Punitive damages (sums intended to punish the defendant) may be awarded in addition to actual damages intended to compensate the plaintiff. Punitive damage awards generally require a higher showing than mere negligence, but lower than intention. For instance, grossly negligent, reckless, or outrageous conduct may be grounds for an award of punitive damages. These punitive damages awards can be quite substantial in some cases. ^[1]

• BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, Constitutional limits on punitive damages

• Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
• Pearson v. Chung (2005)

[edit] Strict liability

Strict liability torts are brought for injuries resulting from ultrahazardous activities, for which the defendant will be held liable even if there was no negligence on his/her part. Strict liability also applies to some types of product liability claims and to copyright infringement and some trademark cases. Some statutory torts are also strict liability, including many environmental torts. The term "strict liability" refers to the fact that the tortfeasor's liability is not premised on their culpable state of mind (whether they knew or intended to accomplish the wrongful act, or violated a standard of care by doing so,) but, instead, strictly on the conduct itself or its result.

[edit] Product liability

Product liability refers to the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers for unreasonably dangerous products.

• Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944)
• Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980)

[edit] Federal torts

Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue for anything from a free speech claim to use of excessive force by the police. Tort claims arising out of injuries occurring on vessels on navigable waters of the United States fall under federal admiralty jurisdiction.

[edit] Tort reform

[edit] See also

• Restatement of Torts, Second
• Restatement of Torts, Apportionment of Liability, Third
• Restatement of Torts, General Principles, Third (discussion draft)
• Restatement of Torts, Products Liability, Third
• Privacy laws of the United States

[edit] References

v • d • e Tort law in North America Sovereign states Antigua and Barbuda · Bahamas · Barbados · Belize · Canada · Costa Rica · Cuba · Dominica · Dominican Republic · El Salvador · Grenada · Guatemala · Haiti · Honduras · Jamaica · Mexico · Nicaragua · Panama1 · Saint Kitts and Nevis · Saint Lucia · Saint Vincent and the Grenadines · Trinidad and Tobago1 · United States Dependencies and other territories Anguilla · Aruba1 · Bermuda · British Virgin Islands · Cayman Islands · Greenland · Guadeloupe · Martinique · Montserrat · Netherlands Antilles1 · Puerto Rico · Saint Barthélemy · Saint Martin · Saint Pierre and Miquelon · Turks and Caicos Islands · United States Virgin Islands 1 Territories also in or commonly considered to be part of South America.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "United States tort law".