|
Dignitary Tort
A dignitary tort is type of intentional tort where the cause of action is being subjected to certain kinds of indignities. Historically, this category of torts was often covered by the writ of trespass ''vi et armis''. Historically, the primary dignitary torts were Battery (tort), battery, assault (tort), assault, and false imprisonment, as each claimed harm to a person's human dignity. A cause of action could be brought for battery, for example, even if no injury was done to the plaintiff, so long as the contact would be offensive to a reasonable person. Under modern jurisprudence the category of dignitary torts is more closely associated with secondary dignitary torts, most notably defamation (slander and libel), false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and alienation of affections. In some jurisdictions, the phrase is limited to those torts which do not require physical injury or threat of physical injury, limiting the class to only those s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Intentional Tort
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken. Background As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Vi Et Armis
Trespass ''vi et armis'' was a kind of lawsuit at common law called a tort. The form of action alleged a trespass upon person or property ''vi et armis'', Latin for "by force and arms." The plaintiff would allege in a pleading that the act committing the offense was "immediately injurious to another's property, and therefore necessarily accompanied by some degree of force; and by special action ''on the case'', where the act is in itself indifferent and the injury only consequential, and therefore arising without any breach of the peace." Thus it was "immaterial whether the injury was committed willfully or not." In ''Taylor v. Rainbow'', the defendant negligently discharged a firearm in a public place and caused the loss of the plaintiff's leg. The defendant was held to be liable for medical bills as well as lost earnings as a result of the disability. Thus, proof that the act or omission was unintended was no defense to an action of trespass ''vi et armis'' and the liable par ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Battery (tort)
At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent. Unlike assault, in which the fear of imminent contact may support a civil claim, battery involves an actual contact. The contact can be by one person (the tortfeasor) of another (the victim), with or without a weapon, or the contact may be by an object brought about by the tortfeasor. For example, the intentionally bringing a car into contact with another person, or the intentional striking of a person with a thrown rock, is a battery. Unlike criminal law, which recognizes degrees of various crimes involving physical contact, there is but a single tort of battery. Lightly flicking a person's ear is battery, as is sev ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Assault (tort)
In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.' In criminal law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury. Comparison to battery As distinguished from battery, assault does not need to involve the 'unwanted physical contact; but is the anticipation of such contact'. It only needs intent to make or threaten contact and the resulting apprehension. At one point, the common law understanding of assault required more than words alone, it also required an overt act. This understanding has changed, while words alone cannot be construed as assa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. Under common law, false imprisonment is both a crime and a tort. Imprisonment Within the context of false imprisonment, an imprisonment occurs when a person is restrained from moving from a location or bounded area, as a result of a wrongful intentional act, such as the use of force, threat, coercion, or abuse of authority. Detention that is not false imprisonment Not all acts of involuntary detention amount to false imprisonment. An accidental detention will not support a claim ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Dignity
Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically. It is of significance in morality, ethics, law and politics as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. The term may also be used to describe personal conduct, as in "behaving with dignity". Etymology The English word "dignity", attested from the early 13th century, comes from Latin ''dignitas'' (worthiness) by way of French ''dignité''. Modern use English-speakers often use the word "dignity" in proscriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, and even to animals used for food or research. "Dignity" also has descriptive meanings pertaining to the ''worth'' of human beings. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Defamation
Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime. The legal definition of defamation and related acts as well as the ways they are dealt with can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions (what exactly they must consist of, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence). Defamation laws can encompass a variety of acts: * Insult against a legal person in general * Defamation against a legal person in general * Acts against public officials * Acts against state institutions (e.g., government, ministries, government agencies, armed forces) * Acts against state symbols * Acts against the state itself * Acts against religions (e.g., blasphemy, discrimination) * Acts against the judiciary or legislature (e.g., contempt of court, censure) Histo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
False Light
In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech. False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being", rather than to protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamationFALSE LIGHT by Professor Edward C. Martin – , [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted ''mental'' for ''emotional'', but the tort is the same. Rationale for classification IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form of assault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Invasion Of Privacy
The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy. On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere; while ''right to privacy'' does not appear in the document, many interpret this through Article 12, which states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, initiated by ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden, the right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. Government agencies, such as the NSA, FBI, CIA, R&AW and GCH ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Alienation Of Affections
Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections. The tort of alienation of affections often overlaps with another "heart balm" tort: criminal conversation. Alienation of affections has most in common with the tort of tortious interference, where a third party can be held liable for interfering with the contractual relationship between two parties. Legal requirements An action for alienation of affection does not require proof of extramarital sex. An alienation claim is difficult to establish because it comprises several elements and ther ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action. History NIED began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
