Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Part 1 Introduction: Meaning of Tort and tortious act. 1. Tort is a common law expression.

It is used to mean wrong, deriving from the latin Turtus meaning twisted, As if to say tortious conduct is twisted conduct o conduct that departs from the existing room. Tort is a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is subject to civil liability. 2. Tortious Act is a wrongful act. It has been defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby, another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation. Essence of tort: 1. Defendants potential for civil liability the essence of tort is defendants potential for civil liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly the victims potential for compensation or other relief. 2. Existence of physical harm, not essential Some torts causes no physical harms but are nonetheless actionable. For example: Maliciously prosecute another person without a probable cause. 3. Variations of torts Many other torts can be described or named, and in fact courts are free to recognize variations and even to recognize new torts at any time. DEFINITIONS OF TORT:
1

1. It is a wrong independent of a contract , or a breach of duty which the law, as distinguished from a mere contract, has imposed. It is a violation of a private legal right other than a mere breach of contract, express or implied for which a civil action may be maintained. 2. A tort is a legal concept possessing the basic elements of a wrong with resultant injury and consequential damage which is cognizable in a court of law. 3. It is a violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all persons occupying the relation to each other which is involved in a given transactions. 4. A tort is an act or omission violative of a private right existing in one or more persons, whether natural or artificial and which the law undertakes to give an appropriate private remedy to the injured person against the wrongdoer. 5. A tort is the unlawful violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. The Fundamental concept of tort, is a wrongful act or omission resulting in breach of a private legal duty1 and damage from said breach of duty of such a character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of injured party against the wrongdoer. Tort law is not concerned with the criminal liability of the offender. KINDS OF WRONGS: 1. Wrongs are either civil or criminal. The wrong is civil when it involves a
As distinguish from mere breach of contractual uty

violation of a private legal right and criminal, when it is regarded as an offense against the public and is penalized by law as a crime or felony. The same act might constitute both a civil and criminal wrong. 2. They may be intentional or negligent. It is intentional if the defendant is consciously aware that his conduct is wrongful. Negligent If the defendant does not intend an invasion of plaintiffs right, but is aware that by his behavior, he is taking unreasonable risk. As a rule a wrong committed intentionally gives rise to criminal liability. 3. Reckless, gross or wanton wrong it is a species of negligence which imports knowledge and consciousness of high risk of arm resulting from conduct as to be equivalent to an intentional wrong. HISTORY OF TORT AS A LEGAL CONCEPT: Tort law emerged from criminal law, and was originally concerned with violent breaches of the peace. It was just a recent event in jurisprudence the development of tort as a distinct, integral concept to civil wrongs. 1. Common law tort It is the judge who usually define what counts as torts and how compensation is to be measure. Violation of statute or constitution is sometimes a tort for which the violator is subject to liability. 2. No clear distinction between tort and crime 3. Notion of tort as a specific wrong 4. Place of torts in Philippine law

FUNCTIONS AND GOALS OF TORT LAW: To discourage violence and revenge. (medieval England) Today it aims to compensate the injured persons and deter undesirable behavior. 1. Morality or corrective justice one of the large system of though wherein particular aims of law are erected. 2. Social Utility or policy This is the 2nd large system of thought that reverses the emphasis. It is based on social policy or a good for all of us view. The dominant concern here is the overall works toward the good of society. 3. Legal process 4. Potential conflict --> the first two is antithetical to each other and legal process view might also conflict with the aims of justice or those policy. Social policy and individual justice has a tendency to go against with each other. See an example over a burning building (p.6) 5. Distribution of loss Defendants who are held liable in torts actions often do not shoulder the burden of compensation themselves. 6. Redress of social grievances the right to sue in tort promotes the redress of social grievances, especially against large impersonal institutions. 7. Summary: a mixed system Tort law performs a mixed set of functions. In some cases, concern fro corrective justice will dominate, but in others, deterrence or concern for loss distribution will be the key.

TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF TORTS: 1. Property Torts They embrace all injuries and damages to property, whether realty or personalty. 2. Personal Torts It includes injury to the person, whether body, reputation, or feelings. A tort which is not an injury to property is a personal tort. Concept of personal injury in tort law: Personal injury is primarily an injury to the body of a person, whether it be administered intentionally, wantonly or by negligence. It does not necessarily involves physical injury. Thus it may include injury affecting reputation, character, conduct, manner and habits of a person. TORTS AND CONTRACT: 1. Fields of tort and contract distinct Breach of contract is not in itself a tort. Conventional view Contract and tort are entirely distinct with each other because contract duties are created by the promises of the parties, while tort duties are imposed as rules of law. Thus the province of torts Is wrongs and the province of contract are agreements or promises. Another conventional view contracts are largely about economic matters such as buying and selling, while torts typically involve physical harm. 2. Basis of Liability Contract law formally strict liability

Most of tort law is at least formally fault based. Specifically, a person is often liable for a contract breach even if he is not at fault and made every efforts to perform the contract as promised. But one is not ordinarily liable under tort law even for conduct that causes horrible injuries unless he is at fault in some way. 3. Test to be applied for existence of tort The duties for violation of which torts results are creature of law and not of particular agreement. The test to be applied is the nature of the right which has been invaded. A contract of course is not essential to the existence of tort, However, a tort liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is the that which breaches the contract. 4. Causes of action need not be completely disconnected from contract 5. Breach of contract treated as tort Mere breach of contract cannot be converted into a tort. Tort liability can exist even if there are already contractual relations. a. More than mere breach of contract To establish commission of tort by breach of contract, the party sought to be charged must be shown, for example, to have been guilty of some fraud, ovveraching conversion or willful and malicious interference with anothers contract rights.

b. Failure or refusal to pay debt The debtor is not liable to the creditor in action of tort in ordinary case. c. damages not within contemplation of parties there is no violation of contract, where the damages resulting from such violation could not reasonable have been within contemplation of the parties. d. Negligent violation of contract it is not a basis for liability for tort. However, the act which violates a contract, may be a negligent one which create such liability. e. Negligent performance or non-performance of contract: General rule: Mere failure to perform a contract cannot serve as a basis for tort liability for negligence 6. Refusal to contract as constituting tort If the duty imposed by law, is to enter into contracts of the character as an incident of his profession. 7. Claim grounded on duress DURABILITY IN TORT AND CONTRACT: Under this rule, it has been held that accompanying every contract there is a duty to perform with care, skill, reasonable expedience and faithfulness the thing agreed to be done. The Negligent Failure to observe any of these conditions is a tort, as well as a breach of contract. General rule -> The plaintiff may elect which to pursue. TORT AND CRIME: Purpose of criminal and tort law:

A. The purpose of criminal punishment is primarily to vindicate the states interests in deterring crime and imposing justice. B. The purpose of tort liability is to primarily vindicate the individual victim and the victims right and secondarily, to confirm and reinforce public standards of behavior. 2. Tort law is growing out of criminal law: 3. Conduct as both criminal and tortious For example: Beating a person 4. Interaction of criminal and tort law 5. Substantive comparison: intent and harm a. most fundamental basis for criminal liability is intent. Some kind of intent is also required for some torts, but more commonly mere negligence coupled with actual harm will suffice for liability. b. How actual harm is treated. 6. Procedural comparisons Tort and crime differ enormously. a. Criminal prosecutions ordinarily must be initiated by the govt. Tort suits may be brought by an aggrieved individual. b. Criminal prosecution can succeed only If the proof shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Torts suits can succeed if the proof shows an actionable tort by a More0likely-than-not standard. Damages and other remedies: 1. Compensation for harm suffered money award called damages

2. Restitution; injunction this force tortfeasor to disgorge gains he wrongfully obtained by tort, and injuction, which compels him to cease his tortuous conduct. Persons entitled to sue for tort: 1. Particular individual injured 2. Person upon whom tort committed 3. Person injured by tort committed upon another 4. Several persons wronged by the same act 5. Person especially injured by contract violation 6. Person directly, not collaterally injured2 Persons liable for tort: a. Tortfeasor b. Persons incapable of making a contract Where a contract is an essential element of tort, a person incapable of making the contract, such as an infant is not liable. c. Person other than tort feasor 1. Mere presence of a person at the commission of a wrongful act by another will not render him liable as a participant 2. Mere knowledge that a tort is being committed against another will not be sufficient to establish liability 3. Mere acquiescence in the commission of a tort after the act does not make the person thus acquiescing a party to the wrong or liable therefor as a joint tortfeasor. 4. Ratification must be founded on full knowledge of the facts constituting
2

the wrong which has been committed or with a purpose on the part of the principal to take the consequences on himself without inquiry. Liability of joint tortfeasors: Torts are either single or joint: Where tortfeasors acted independently of each other 1. Injuries separate and distinct 2. Injury single and indivisible Law governing transitory torts: 1. Law of the place; law of the forum 2. Determination of place of wrong Philippine law on torts: Expanded concept of quasi-delict:

Re read p. 16