How Do Liability Rules For Intentional Torts Differ From Those For Negligence?

One of these 2 elements is found in each personal injury claim:

1) The plaintiff was harmed due to the defendant’s carelessness.
2) The plaintiff was harmed by a purposeful act, one that was carried out by the defendant.

A charge of negligence comes down, if the evidence shows that a given defendant has been careless and neglectful.

The court must also find that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, and failed to carry out that same duty. That breach, that failure must have been the cause for the accident that harmed the plaintiff. A final proof of negligence comes in the nature of the plaintiff’s damages. The personal injury lawyers in Romeoville know that those damages must be measurable; in order to increase chances for the plaintiff’s winning of a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant.

Someone that has committed a purposeful and harmful act could be charged with a tort crime.

A tort crime is not an act that is done by accident. There are 2 defenses that would be the likely choice of a lawyer that was advocating for the defendant in a trial that was being held in response to a tort crime.

1) The defendant acted in self-defense.
2) The plaintiff had granted to the defendant permission to carry out that allegedly criminal act.

Both negligence and any tort crime are viewed as acts of aggression.

• Some acts of aggression are both a crime and a civil wrong.
• If carried to an extreme, a civil wrong could develop into a punishable crime.
• If an alleged accident were to get repeated numerous times, it could look like an intentional act.
• A threat might qualify as a crime, if it took the form of an intentional act.

Picture an older woman raising an umbrella at a stranger that has walked onto her property. That is a true threat. Still, if her son were to tell her to lower that umbrella, the stranger might not feel it necessary to press charges, which could entail citing performance of a tort crime.

That hypothetical situation could account for the behavior of a paralegal one specific day, when his mother lifted an umbrella at a stranger. He called out to her, telling her to put it down. Obviously, that son was worried about what could happen, if his mother were to lose her grip on that umbrella, and send it flying into the air. If it had then hit the stranger, his mother could have been charged with both negligent behavior and performance of a tort crime. Her actions would have matched with the description for both of the elements that are known to encourage the filing of some type of personal injury claim.


Leave a comment