To: Nicholas Schroeder
From: Mellie Craigs
Date: April 17, 2013
Re: Intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability
Explain the general differences between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Additionally, explain the elements of intentional torts and negligence and provide working examples to illustrate each.
FACTS 1. Intentional torts are actions with the purpose or intention to injure another person or that person’s property. The person inflicting the harm is called a tortfeasor. Intentional torts require intent. The person who committed the tort must have intended to cause harm. The harm, however, does not require malice or ill will, just the knowledge that certain consequences would result from their acts. Most often, the consequences result in some type of harm. Intentional torts involve intentional acts, and carry a high degree of risk if injury, and usually a low degree of social benefit. The risk generally outweighs the benefit received; therefore, the duty not to intentionally injure someone or something is great. 2. Negligence is the failure of an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person to exercise due care, resulting in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Negligence torts do not require intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the level necessary to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm. To determine if someone should be found liable for a negligence tort, a reasonable person standard is used. If the defendant 's behavior is found to be less careful than behavior a reasonable person would exhibit, that defendant can be found liable for damages. 3. Strict (absolute) liability is the fact that liability is maintained despite any intent, recklessness, negligence, or any other kind of wrongfulness. A strict liability tort refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken. The tortfeasor