Certain professionals, such as doctors, pilots, and plumbers, are held to the standards of reasonably skilled professionals in their field. Even minors are liable for the torts they commit. However, when deciding the reasonable conduct of a minor, the law usually compares a minor’s conduct with other individuals of the same age, intelligence, and experience.

Causation Causation In order to prove causation, there must be proof that the defendant’s actions actually led to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The element of causation is broken down into two separate issues – cause in fact and proximate cause. If the harm would not have occurred without the wrongful act, then the act is the cause in fact. To prove proximate cause, there must be a close connection between the wrongful act and the harm caused. The harm that resulted must have been foreseeable from the wrongful act.

Damages Damages The basic idea behind damages is that the plaintiff should be restored – in the form of money –to his or her original position before the negligence occurred. Courts allow plaintiffs to collect for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other loses.

Defenses to Negligence Suits Defenses to Negligence Suits Even when a plaintiff can prove all of the elements of negligence, the defendant may be able to raise a valid legal defense. Most states allow a defense called comparative negligence. In comparative negligence the defendant and the plaintiff split the loss according to how much each person was at fault. For example, if a judge decides that a plaintiff was 60 percent responsible for injuries and the defendant only 40 percent responsible, each would only pay that particular percentage. As another legal defense, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the harm and should therefore be held responsible for the resulting injury.

Strict Liability Strict liability means that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff regardless of fault. In some situations, even if the defendant acted in a reasonable manner and took all necessary precautions, he or she may still be liable. Strict liability means that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff regardless of fault. In some situations, even if the defendant acted in a reasonable manner and took all necessary precautions, he or she may still be liable. Strict liability is applied when ultra hazardous activities, dangerous animals, or manufacturers of defective products cause harm. To win a strict liability case, the plaintiff must prove only causation and damages.

Dangerous Activities Dangerous Activities Strict liability applies to activities that are unreasonably dangerous. Activities are considered unreasonably dangerous when they involve a risk of harm even when reasonable precautions are taken. Although these activities may be socially useful or necessary, those who conduct them may be held strictly liable. Companies conducting dangerous activities know that they are strictly liable for the harm they cause. Therefore, they build this cost into the price they charge for the work.

Animals Animals The law traditionally has held owners responsible for any harm caused by their untamed animals. However, the situation differs for household pets. The defendant is held strictly liable only if he or she had reason to believe the pet was dangerous to others. Even when strict liability does not apply, the negligence standard still may be used to hold owners of household pets liable for the harm they cause.

Defective Products Defective Products Product liability is the legal responsibility of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products. Strict liability for product manufacturers is meant to encourage manufactures to design safe products, test them before placing them on the market, and provide clear directions and warning areas. The cost companies incur for product research, safety features, and insurance is usually passed on to the consumer in the form of higher product prices.

Defenses to Strict Liability Defenses to Strict Liability There are very few defenses in strict liability cases. The defendant’s best strategy may be to argue that he or she should be held to a negligence standard rather than a strict liability standard. A negligence standard could work in the defendant’s favor because negligence is harder to prove than strict liability. A defendant may also try to show there was no causation or that no damages were caused to the plaintiff. Manufacturers may also have a defense if the consumer used the product incorrectly or inappropriately.

Torts and Public Policy As a matter of public policy, tort law should compensate harmed victims promptly and efficiently, ensure that victims receive the compensation from the responsible defendant, and deter future risky behavior. As a matter of public policy, tort law should compensate harmed victims promptly and efficiently, ensure that victims receive the compensation from the responsible defendant, and deter future risky behavior. Many people criticize the current tort system for various reasons, including unreasonably high awards to plaintiffs; the expense, length of time, and complexity involved in tort suits; and difficulty in determining who is at fault.

Tort Reform Tort Reform Tort reform is a movement that has developed to address people’s concerns about the tort system. Some efforts at reform target the actual process involved in settling tort claims. One effort is to try to convince the parties to settle out of court to avoid a lengthy and expensive trial. Other tort reform efforts focus on placing limits on how much a plaintiff can collect. These may include limits for damages awarded for pain and suffering or that make it more difficult for a plaintiff to collect punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant rather than compensate a victim.

Medical malpractice is an area of tort reform that is particularly controversial. As tort awards increase in number and size, insurance premiums paid by doctors and hospitals have increased. Eventually, this cost is passed on to patients, driving up the already–high cost of medical care. Competent doctors sometimes are driven out of business due to the high cost of their insurance. Some people believe this situation must be addressed, but others argue that it is important to have a system that allows patients who have suffered harm to recover adequate damages.

The Cost of Safety The Cost of Safety Safety is not free. There is almost always some cost involved when precautions are taken to make an activity safer. When a company takes safety precautions or is forced to pay for the injuries caused by its products, those additional costs are passed on to consumers. Therefore, we all pay for the cost of safety.