3 Torts Used in Personal Injury Law and their Elements

Personal injury law is different from criminal law.
What criminal law deals with are wrongdoings that should not be acceptable to a civilized society.
The penalties in criminal cases are usually fines or imprisonment.
Personal injury meanwhile, deals with the civil wrong done by one person to another.
The aim of personal injury law is to have a person who have committed a harmful action be held liable for the damages he caused.
In personal injury law, there are three general torts that allow a person to recover compensation for the injuries he incurred from the liable party.
Those are:
Intentional Tort
This refers to wrongful acts that are committed willfully and deliberately.
In intentional tort, you have to prove the following elements:
• The wrongful act was done willfully with the knowledge that it ca lead to injury
• The intentional acts proximately caused the injuries
• The victim sustained damages due to his injuries
Examples include:
• False imprisonment
• Battery
• Assault
• Defamation of character
Negligence Tort
To know if the defendant was negligent in his actions (or inaction) the jury or judge will look at how a reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation.
If the defendant’s actions fall below that standard, then it can be said that he failed to exercise due care and prudence in his actions.
In negligence tort, you have to prove the following elements:
• Duty owed
• Breach of duty
• Breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries
• The plaintiff sustained damages due to his injuries
Strict Liability Tort
California is one of the US states that recognizes strict liability in product liability cases.
Under this doctrine, plaintiffs may recover damages regardless if the defendant was negligent or not.
In this tort, the manufacturer can be held liable for damages as long as the plaintiff can prove the following elements:
• There is an in inherent safety defect in the product
• The product was used for its intended purpose
• The safety defect proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries
• The plaintiff sustained damages due to his injuries.