Warning

Info

Torts, Torts, and More Torts: A Guide to the Three Kinds of Torts

A Crash Course in Legal Wrongs
Apr 2, 2023

Introduction

The world of law can sometimes seem like a dense, tangled web of rules and regulations, but fear not! We are here to help you navigate the legal labyrinth, one step at a time. Today, we'll untangle the ever-elusive torts. No, not the delicious dessert you might be thinking of - that would be tarts. We're talking about torts: a set of civil wrongs that can lead to legal liability. They come in three different flavors, just like ice cream, except without the fun and sprinkles: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Are you ready to embark on a light-hearted journey through the fascinating land of tort law? Buckle up, and let's dive in!

I. Intentional Torts: "You Did That on Purpose!"

First up on our list of torts is the aptly named "intentional torts." These are instances where one person (the wrongdoer) intentionally causes harm to another person (the victim). It's like your older sibling poking you repeatedly during a long road trip, knowing full well it's going to drive you up the wall. However, in the legal world, the consequences are a bit more severe than an annoyed sibling (usually).

Some common examples of intentional torts include:

  1. Assault: This is when someone threatens or attempts to cause physical harm to another person, making them fear for their safety. It's like when your sibling pretends to throw something at you, but stops short, eliciting a flinch.
  2. Battery: This occurs when someone intentionally touches another person in a harmful or offensive manner, without their consent. It's the next step after assault, where your sibling actually throws the object and makes contact.
  3. False imprisonment: This is when someone intentionally restricts another person's freedom of movement without their consent. Imagine your sibling locking you in a closet against your will (not cool, big bro).
  4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress: This is when someone intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another person. Think of it as a prank gone horribly wrong, leaving the victim in tears.

To prove an intentional tort, the victim must demonstrate that the wrongdoer's actions were deliberate and meant to cause harm. While it's not always easy to prove intent, it's usually pretty clear when someone is up to no good. And in the realm of intentional torts, no good means potential legal liability.

For cases involving torts, visit LSD+ Briefs and brace yourself for a riveting read.

II. Negligence: "Oops, I Didn't Mean to Do That!"

If intentional torts are the older sibling poking you on purpose, negligence is like accidentally bumping into you while reaching for the remote. Negligence occurs when someone fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would use in a similar situation, resulting in harm to another person. It's the "I didn't mean to" of the tort world.

To prove negligence, the victim must establish four key elements:

  1. Duty: The wrongdoer owed a duty of care to the victim. In simple terms, the wrongdoer had a responsibility not to harm the victim.
  2. Breach: The wrongdoer breached that duty of care by failing to act as a reasonable person would have in a similar situation.
  3. Causation: The wrongdoer's breach directly caused the victim's harm.
  4. Damages: The victim suffered actual harm or loss as a result of the wrongdoer's breach.

For example, let's say your neighbor decides to practice their juggling skills with chainsaws (which we don't recommend, by the way). In their enthusiasm, they accidentally toss one of the chainsaws over the fence, landing on your prize-winning roses. Your neighbor has breached their duty of care, and their negligence has caused your precious flowers' untimely demise. You may have a case for negligence, which could help you recover the cost of your rose replacement.

One thing to keep in mind is that accidents happen, but that doesn't mean everyone who makes a mistake is automatically liable for negligence. If the wrongdoer acted as a reasonable person would have under the circumstances, they may not be held responsible. So, if your neighbor accidentally crushes your roses while helping you move a heavy couch, they might be off the hook. It's the difference between a well-intentioned blunder and a careless disregard for the safety of others.

III. Strict Liability: "It's My Fault, Even If I Didn't Mean It"

The final flavor in our tort law ice cream parlor is strict liability. In this case, the wrongdoer is held responsible for the harm caused, even if they did everything reasonably possible to prevent it. It's the legal equivalent of, "It's not you, it's me."

Strict liability typically applies to situations involving ultra-hazardous activities, defective products, or dangerous animals. Here are a few examples:

  1. Ultra-hazardous activities: These are activities so inherently dangerous that the person engaging in them is held responsible for any harm that occurs, regardless of the precautions taken. Think of it like keeping a pet tiger. No matter how well you train it or how many safety measures you put in place, if it escapes and causes harm, you're on the hook.
  2. Defective products: This is when a manufacturer or seller is held liable for harm caused by a product with a defect, regardless of whether they were negligent in creating or distributing the product. Picture a company selling exploding smartphones. Even if they didn't know about the defect, they can still be held responsible for the damage caused.
  3. Dangerous animals: When an owner of a dangerous animal, such as a venomous snake, knows about the animal's dangerous propensities and the animal causes harm, the owner can be held strictly liable. It's like owning a snake with a history of biting; if it bites someone, you're responsible, even if you've taken precautions to keep it contained.

Strict liability might seem a bit harsh, but it exists to protect the public from activities or products that pose a significant risk. When people or companies engage in these activities, they must accept the potential consequences, even if they've done everything in their power to prevent harm.

Conclusion

And there you have it! The three kinds of torts - intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability - all wrapped up in a slightly humorous and easily digestible package. While we can't promise that understanding tort law will make you the life of the party, it might just give you the upper hand in a heated debate or help you recognize when you have a legal claim worth pursuing.

Related Articles

  1. Preparing for Class
  2. Case Brief Generator
  3. Writing an Effective Case Brief for Students
cryptanon HLS '22 & LSD creator

Tech-focused creator of LSD.Law. I built LSD while applying to law school. I saw unequal access to knowledge and built LSD to level the playing field and help applicants make thoughtful, well-informed decisions in the application process.

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
18:38
Depending on your stats the answer could also be option C, reapply next year for >50% at Tennessee/substantial $ at other good schools (most spend their scholarship budget by June 30th), but that depends on your situation and goals
18:39
Standardized info on curves is harder to find, but this says Elon curves to a 2.67 which is downright predatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_school_GPA_curves
appreciate it. i am well removed from undergrad and am pushing through for this year. have significant business experience and want to do corporate law and/or property. not educated on the curve and how that works, will look into that
questioning whether i go to school for free at a lesser school or pay some out of pocket at a better name for the same degree at end of the day, the numbers don't lie
18:54
@DisillusionedHomelessWalnut: The way the curve works is a below-median student at Tennessee (curves to a 3.1, so B/B+) can end up with a better GPA than an above-average student at Elon (curves to a 2.67/B-minus), so the student from Tennessee will have a better transcript *and* get better jobs on average than someone with the same class rank at Elon
18:56
Your real alarm bell is Elon's curve (linked here, p. 70 https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/996/2019/07/2017-2018_Academic_Catalog-and-Student_Handbook.pdf) *requires* profs to give 20% of first-year students a C-minus or worse, when the school's bar for "satisfactory academic progress" is a C+ average
ooooffff. thanks. i mean, full ride is cool and all, but damn
18:59
The only scenario where a school does something like that (curve to a 2.67, dismiss students below 2.25) is when they're admitting a lot of students who may not pass the bar, then flunking people out mercilessly so the school can keep its accreditation (ABA requires 75% of grads to pass the bar within two years, can't fail the bar if the school doesn't let you graduate)
the dean told me "no students had their scholarships reduced in the past three years, and to my recollection only one scholarship in 19 years has been reduced when a student was in good standing"
yeah, i get that and appreciate you validating that point. i like to think it really wouldn't apply to me and assume it happens due to the lower standards of admissions they utilize, but is it (full ride) worth the risk? that's the fly in the ointment
just trying to weigh all angles, seems like just biting the bullet and paying the modest amount to UTK is a smarter decision
end of cycle is for the birds, but i'm playing the hand i was dealt :)
19:06
In general you are going to be better off at a school that wants its students to succeed. UTK seems to fit the description - they are not in any danger of losing their accreditation, don't need to force people out. Elon very much does not, if their bar passage drops 2% they'll be in violation of ABA requirements so they won't give students any leway
19:06
*leeway
i appreciate your insight, friend
manifestmoreadmissions
19:11
im too lazy to provide the same level of detail as JB but I agree UTK seems like a better bet to actually achieve your career goals and set yourself up for success. I would understand being conflicted if it were like UTK vs Belmont or a lower ranked school that isn't considered predatory but because it's Elon that makes it more clear to me
thank you
the counterpoint bouncing around my head is basically "if i'm worth a damn, as i think i am, i'll be just fine no matter what the curve is" but you folks are nudging me in the direction of logic and common sense
manifestmoreadmissions
19:18
plenty of the people who fall behind are worth a damn it's just that some schools are basically set up to screw people over
yeah. fall behind as in....miss homework? can't keep up with readings? something else?
kinda nervous coming in as an untraditional guy around KJD's, billy madison vibes over here
19:21
Re: costs, it's worth looking at costs all around, both schools cost (net tuition, $0 at Elon/$30K over 3 years if you're in-state at UTK) PLUS three years not earning money or advancing in your career, which is worth 6 figures if you make decent money now. $30K in tuition is a small share of total costs in this comparison
19:24
"Fall behind" in this context means law school curves are rigid, no matter how hard everyone studies half the class will be below-median, 25% in the bottom quarter, etc. It's not super predictable either, so a student above GPA or LSAT median could still end up bottom half or 1/4 of the class
gotcha. predatory in that instance is certainly appropriate
manifestmoreadmissions
19:32
i am not kjd but im glad jb cleared that up for you lmao
19:32
And assuming similar class rank, UTK grads tend to do better in public data. Top students at UTK have a shot at biglaw (pays $225K), top students at Elon end up at small/medium firms (worse pay). Average students at UTK can get jobs at small/medium firms, average students at Elon are on the bubble for any firm job at all. Below-average students at UTK have a shot at firm jobs or other work, below-average students at Elon might not get jobs (or pass the bar, or avoid academic dismissal). That's the major advantage of well-regarded schools - more upside, less downside
manifestmoreadmissions
19:32
but yeah just reiterating that you could be worth so many damns and still not do well because its set up for that
19:37
(This is ignoring public service/government jobs, because the stats there don't tell us much about the type of job - "super competitive Department of Justice job in DC making $90K" and "local government job earning $50K" both get lumped together under the "public service" label, but say v. different things about a school's job placement
really appreciate all the insight
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.