Contrast Investibility In Tort With Contractual Liability
946 Words4 Pages
Contrast liability in tort with contractual liability. Explain liability in negligence as well.
Torts are considered to be unjustified acts that cause loss, damage or injury to someone else in the form “body, property or legal rights.” This is because there is a violation of duty owed as decreed by law. A tort is a civil wrong and the person who is wronged can sue in a civil court for either compensation or some from of equitable remedy to prevent repetition of such acts. On the other hand, contractual liability exists when parties are bound by a contract. However this act of contracting is entirely voluntary. Tart law is applicable to both companies and individuals. Laws of tort and contract are classified as a portion…show more content… Should a party not perform as stipulated in the contract, contractual liability is incurred. An example would be a party having contracted to purchase piece of equipment. Should the item not be delivered at the agreed date and time, the contract is breeched and the party in breech is liable in the amount of the contract. On the other hand, if the other party fails to pay for the item, he is liable for the financial losses suffered by the supplier of the item.
Tort is non-criminal wrongdoing due to the failure to perform ones responsibility and act in a reasonable way so that others are not harmed. While most torts are due to negligence, some others may be done on purpose (intentional).
An example of tortuous liability will be explored. John buys a new car and is elated to tell his wife about it. He drives off the parking lot while using the phone. Since John was engaged in the conversation with his wife, he failed to see a stop sign. As a driver, John has a duty of ensuring that he handles his vehicle in a safe and responsible way so as not to endanger other road users. John however, failed to do so and got into an accident with Pete. As a result, John has a tortuous liability towards Pete, for causing damages to Pete’s car and injuries to…show more content… Even if the employee is the one who violated “the duty of care” to the customer, the employer is responsible for damages. The tort committed has to be related to work, during employment hours.
Tort of negligence if found in under the following circumstances:
• A person owes another person a duty of care.
• There is a violation in the duty of care.
• The violation in the duty of care results in the victim having to suffer significant and measured harm.
Even if the plaintiff has managed to establish the 3 elements of tort negligence, the defendant may shirk liability if they can prove the validity of the following defenses.
Defenses to the tort of negligence are:
• If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff was completely aware of the risks at the beginning of the task, he is free from all liability.
The defendant does not need to warn the plaintiff of evident risks to the plaintiffs unless it was decreed by law or requested by the defendant.