Torts
A tort is defined as a civil wrong that results in a claimant suffering injury or loss (Pastor, 2007). The consequence of a tort is litigation against the offending individual. Tort law thus determines if the person who injures another party should be sued, and they type of damages that the injured person should receive. However, four critical aspects must be initially determined before legal proceedings can be instituted and damages granted. Firstly, it must be established that a person owed a duty to another. Secondly, a breach of the owed duty must have occurred, resulting in loss or harm to the aggrieved party. Third causation must be established, ascertaining that the injury or loss is a direct outcome of the breached duty. Lastly, the injury or loss must be palpable to help determine the actual loss suffered.
In light of this, there are three types of torts. A strict liability tort arises from a defendant’s liability in committing a particular action, notwithstanding their mental state at the time of executing the action (Legal Information Institute, 2020). An intentional tort results from an individual deliberately committing an act that harms another person. For example, in the tortious act of an employee defaming an employer, it should be established that the employee deliberately issued defamatory statements, intentionally availed it to the public, and defended the defamation through falsehoods. Consequently, in Michael Phelan v. May Department Stores Company, et al., Michael’s belief that his colleagues perceived him in a defamatory perspective did not suffice to ascertain defamatory publication (Pastor, 2007).
A negligent tort is not an intentional act and arises when an entity or person fails to act reasonably by breaching a duty they owe to someone. The negligence usually leads to financial losses or personal injury to the aggrieved party. In this case, compensation is awarded if the harm or loss from the negligent action is reasonably foreseeable. An example of a negligent tort is negligent hiring that entails an employer negligently hiring an employee who then injures or harms a third party. In such a case, the employer fails to conduct a background check on an employee before employing them. For example, in the J. v. Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, a church is held responsible for hiring an employee with a sexual assault case, and who was on probation for the assault and barred from dealing with children. The hiring pastor failed to exercise due diligence to investigate the employee before hiring him (Pastor, 2007).
Proximate cause is the commission or omission of an act that is regarded as adequate to result in a legal outcome (Tikriti, 2020). In other words, it relates to the responsibility an individual bears in a negligence case. Proximate cause is related to the elements of a tort in that it also requires that a defendant be proven to have anticipated the outcomes of their actions. The defendant should also have foreseen the consequences of their actions, especially in injuring or harming the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff should establish that defendant’s action or inaction was the proximate cause of their injury or damages.
In the 1928 case Palsgraf vs Long Island Railroad, the court determined that Palsgraf’s injury was not directly associated by railroad’s guards. The employees were trying to save a man trying to board the train from falling, and in the process, a package fell on the rails, exploded, and injured Palsgraf. The ruling held that Long Island Railroad did not act negligently because it not could have predicted the outcome of its employees’ actions harming the plaintiff. The guards did not act negligently towards Palsgraf because they did not anticipate the package contained explosives that could have exploded if it fell. Hence, this case could not be heard because no negligence leading to proximate cause was established (Casebriefs, 2020).
From the case, proximate cause is evidently vital because it helps to establish an individual’s responsibility in causing harm or injury to another person. The aspect of proving a person’s fault as directly causing such harm is crucial because not everyone who causes an injury to someone can be regarded legally responsible. Without establishing the legal guideline of proximate cause, courts would have to grapple with resolving unreasonable lawsuits that would be difficult to refuse the offended party compensation. Conclusively, tort law is essential to the security professions because it helps companies establish the guidelines that their security personnel must follow when handling members of the public. Companies employ these regulations to avert the likelihood of numerous litigations against them, arising from tortious acts committed by their security personnel against the public.
References
Casebriefs. (2020). Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/negligence-the-scope-of-risk-or-proximate-cause-requirement/palsgraf-v-long-island-r-co/
Legal Information Institute. (2020). Strict liability. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability#:~:text=Overview,was%20when%20committing%20the%20action.
Pastor, J.F. (2007). Security law and methods. Elsevier, Inc.
Tikriti, A. (2020). Foreseeability and proximate cause in a personal injury case. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/foreseeability-proximate-cause.html#:~:text=Foreseeability%20is%20a%20personal%20injury,of%20his%20or%20her%20conduct.
