BUS 670: Elements Of Negligent Tort
Elements of Negligent Tort
Gregory Williams
BUS 670
Dr. Mark A. Cohen
19 October 2012
A tort is a civil wrong that is not a breach of a contract. Tort cases and treatises identify different types of wrongfulness, culpability, or fault and define them in varying ways. ort law contemplates civil liability for those who commit torts. This distinguishes it from the criminal law, which also involves wrongful behavior (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010). These laws have been modified many times since the late 1800 's by state legislatures and these changes have given plaintiffs more chance of success when bringing forth their claims. Original tort law included coverage for injuries suffered while in the workplace, but this …show more content…
An integral part of negligent torts is proximate causation. Proximate causation is when acts is not always clear but assume the existence of actual cause. This injury or events is where the plaintiff has the right to bring suit against the defendant for compensatory damages that can exceed the actual costs incurred by the injured party. Along with proximate causation is also the duty to care, which shows that the defendant has a duty to the persons he or she is dealing with to ensure that their actions do not result in injury to any persons that they have business dealings with. Gertsen v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1973 is an example of proximate causation (Harper, James Jr., & Gray, 2005). This case highlighted the duty of care and negligence on the part of the Municipality, which operated a garbage dump in the area. They buried the garbage at a certain depth which resulted in the build up and eventual release of harmful gases that caused neighboring home owners garages to explode. The plaintiffs in the case were victorious because the defendants ' were found that they should have known that the dumping and burying of the garbage would have caused the release of gases and also …show more content…
This omission of sealant resulted in the damage and the contracting company should have known this would have occurred over time, I feel that I would have been victorious if I had to utilize negligent tort law to recoup my monetary damages to complete the repairs necessary, given the circumstances surrounding the
Gregory Williams
BUS 670
Dr. Mark A. Cohen
19 October 2012
A tort is a civil wrong that is not a breach of a contract. Tort cases and treatises identify different types of wrongfulness, culpability, or fault and define them in varying ways. ort law contemplates civil liability for those who commit torts. This distinguishes it from the criminal law, which also involves wrongful behavior (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2010). These laws have been modified many times since the late 1800 's by state legislatures and these changes have given plaintiffs more chance of success when bringing forth their claims. Original tort law included coverage for injuries suffered while in the workplace, but this …show more content…
An integral part of negligent torts is proximate causation. Proximate causation is when acts is not always clear but assume the existence of actual cause. This injury or events is where the plaintiff has the right to bring suit against the defendant for compensatory damages that can exceed the actual costs incurred by the injured party. Along with proximate causation is also the duty to care, which shows that the defendant has a duty to the persons he or she is dealing with to ensure that their actions do not result in injury to any persons that they have business dealings with. Gertsen v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1973 is an example of proximate causation (Harper, James Jr., & Gray, 2005). This case highlighted the duty of care and negligence on the part of the Municipality, which operated a garbage dump in the area. They buried the garbage at a certain depth which resulted in the build up and eventual release of harmful gases that caused neighboring home owners garages to explode. The plaintiffs in the case were victorious because the defendants ' were found that they should have known that the dumping and burying of the garbage would have caused the release of gases and also …show more content…
This omission of sealant resulted in the damage and the contracting company should have known this would have occurred over time, I feel that I would have been victorious if I had to utilize negligent tort law to recoup my monetary damages to complete the repairs necessary, given the circumstances surrounding the