Tort Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 2

Tort Law - Essay Example This additional amount is known as punitive damages. Similarly, there may be situations whereby the plaintiff may file an injunction which prevents the defendant from injuring him or her or from invading one of his or her property. Tort laws are laws instituted to offer compensation to persons who have been harmed due to the irrational actions of a second or third party. The claims in tort generally involve state law, and are based on the postulation that individuals are at all times liable for their own actions, if it either directly or indirectly results in the injury of others. Tort law constitutes a branch of private law that is also characterized by contract law, property law and restitution. A tort law has a distinctive capability of transferring the problems of a victim plaintiff, to another person, the defendant2. In the tort law, the duty of care is that legal obligation that is imposed upon a person requiring that the individual stick to the standard of reasonable care in c ourse of executing any acts that can foreseeable harm other individuals. In order to establish whether there was an act of negligence in this case or not, there is need to first consider if the Healthy Organics Ltd, Maahir, Harry, the paramedics, Fred as well as the Surgeon who used a \ new non-invasive technique who can be regarded as defendants in this case, owed the plaintiffs (the affected individuals) a duty of care. In other words, are the five reasonably responsible for the injuries sustained by Syed, Maisy, Tom, Gerry, and Robert? As it is in this case, it is certain that there was a duty of care that is imposed by law that the defendants in this case breached and as provided by law such individuals are subject to liability. Exploration The article under analysis comprises of a number of cases that lie within the context of tort. The first is a scenario whereby a tort suit is applicable is in the case against Maahir, who is in possession of work man tools that aid him in eff ectively undertaking his work. As such, he is tasked with the obligation of ensuring the tools he uses are kept away safely, lest they inflict injury on any second or third party. Regrettably this is what unerringly materialized. Via a series of events made probable by laxity on the part of Maahir, Syed, an innocent child, is hurt. Explicitly, this set-up is characterized by elements of strict liability. Strict liability entails the plaintiff ascertaining, beyond a doubt, the defendant had an obligation to guarantee something was kept safe. Subsequently, the defendant failed to perform this duty, thus, leading to injury of the plaintiff. In this case, there was foreseeability as the random and careless placing of tools in an environment characterized by children was bound to eventuate in injury. In this occasion, Maahir had a liability on the injury sustained by Syed. When this case is looked into closely, there exists negligence on the part of Maahir. However, Syed must prove that he was a primary victim of negligence. In the ruling Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire3, it was ruled that primary victims only have to prove that the injury was foreseeable. Furthermore, there is no need to establish that psychiatric injury was indeed foreseeable4. As such, under this criterion then Maahir is liable for the injury sustai