tort

(redirected from Law of tort)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.

tort

a civil wrong. The laws of tort are general laws which protect the personal rights of an individual to non-violation of his or her property, reputation and person:
  1. offences against property rights include trespass; negligence (where there is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in unintended damage to the plaintiff); and nuisance (where there is an unlawful and unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of his or her property);
  2. offences against reputation include libel, and slander (making a false and malicious statement which damages another person's reputation);
  3. offences against one's person include assault, battery; negligence; and intimidation (a threat to perform an unlawful act interfering with the victim's freedom of action).

It may be noted in this context that an employer may be made liable for the torts of his employees which are committed during the course of their employment, having vicarious liability for their actions. In a tort action the plaintiff will usually be seeking either financial compensation (damages) for harm done to him or her by the defendant, or an injunction from the court ordering the defendant to discontinue harming the plaintiff.

tort

A legally recognized wrong for which the law provides a remedy.The wrong may be negligent;it might be one of the intentional torts such as defamation, assault, battery, trespass, conversion (broadly, acts that amount to theft), or false imprisonment (preventing someone from leaving a place);or it might be something that can combine elements of negligence,recklessness,or intentional conduct,such as fraud or nuisance.The modern trend of legal theory is to expand concepts of tort liability. As a result, older decisions that find in favor of a property owner, for example, and against someone injured on the property may no longer be reliable when you are trying to determine rules of conduct and the limits of responsibilities.The better practice is to do all things reasonable and fair under the circumstances,regularly consult with insurance advisors regarding risk management practices, keep informed regarding litigation trends in your industry, and always maintain adequate insurance coverage.

References in periodicals archive ?
109) David Ibbetson, "The Tort of Negligence in the Common Law in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries" in Eltjo JH Schrage, ed, Negligence: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Torts (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001) 229 at 258.
Writing in 1940, Bernard Sugerman, Challis Lecturer (part-time) in the law of tort at the University of Sydney, wrote that '[d]ivergence of opinion between the courts here and in England is perhaps more to be expected in the law of torts than in other parts of the law:26 Although Sugerman did not explain this comment any further, he certainly had reason to know; apart from lecturing at Sydney he was also the first Editor of the Australian Law Journal in 1927, a position he held until judicial appointment in 1946.
history of the common law of tort and the way it has been shaped by its
Osbome, Law of Torts (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2000) at 51.
Consider, for example, the mediaeval writ of trespass, which was the earliest discernable direct ancestor of the modern law of tort.
The law of torts assigns liability for harms individuals inflict on others.
My central contention will be that the law of torts protects each person's means against other persons, so that each person is secure in the means that he or she has.
McGarity, Beyond Buckman: Wrongful Manipulation of the Regulatory Process in the Law of Torts, 41 WASHBURN L.
and illuminates some of the deepest impulses in the law of torts.
In claiming that the law of tort and crime, as much as the law of constitutional rights, is integral to liberal political theory, it marks a pronounced departure from current liberal orthodoxy, yet also steers clear of the opposing orthodoxy of libertarianism.
The author relies heavily on an analogy with the law of tort and rejects the law of the place of enrichment as being in many cases hard to ascertain and potentially arbitrary (at 134).