Although tort liability is essentially a civil violation, not all civil violations are torts. For example, public nuisance committed by a person is not a crime, and a prosecution for it must be brought by the state. It is only in cases where the public harassment in question involves individuals that they have the right to take action. If a person illegally obstructs a public highway, only the State authorities are empowered to take action against the offender. On the other hand, if the disability causes great inconvenience, delays and additional transport costs for a particular person who has to travel this route with heavy luggage in loaded wagons and is forced to take a different route, he may receive compensation from the offender for the special damage he has suffered. According to the first theory, if I have hurt my neighbor, I can sue in tort, whether or not the harm has a specific name such as bodily injury, assault, deception or defamation, and I will be liable if I cannot prove legal justification. This leads to the broader principle that unjustifiable damage is tortious. This allows courts to create new offenses and hold defendants liable regardless of any errors in plaintiffs` pleadings. Just as there are cases where damage is not enforceable as a tort, conversely, there are cases where an act is enforceable as a tort even if it was not caused at all. In Ashby v. Weiss, the plaintiff was wrongly prevented from exercising his right to vote by the respondents, returning officers in a parliamentary election. The candidate for whom the applicant wished to vote had won the election.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff sued the defendants for malicious interference with the exercise of his right to vote lawfully in that election. Chief Justice Lord Holt awarded damages to the plaintiff, asserting that there had been a breach of a right to which he was entitled. All crimes can be divided into two categories. These are: (i) those that are enforceable in themselves, i.e. prima facie enforceable, and (ii) those that are enforceable only to prove the actual damage resulting therefrom. Trespassing or unauthorized entry into another person`s property is in itself punishable, meaning that even if your act of trespassing did not cause significant damage to the owner of the property, you are liable because there is a violation of a legal right to which he is entitled. On the other hand, if you drive your car negligently on public roads, you will only be held civilly liable to another person if they have been injured as a result of your negligent and thoughtless driving. In such cases, damages may only be awarded if the actual damage is inflicted on a party. Almost all cases of injuria sine damno fall into the category in which defendants are held liable for violating the legal rights to which they are entitled, even though the defendants` particular acts may not have caused substantial harm to the plaintiffs. Intrusion is punishable, even if it has not caused any damage to the plaintiff.
Intentional tort liability requires an intentional act by one offender against another. Some intentional crimes can also be criminal. For example, if a person beats someone and harms them, this is also a criminal act and the person can be arrested and prosecuted at the same time. Lawsuits can be costly and stressful. Insurance coverage can often be purchased to protect an individual or business from potential financial loss arising from certain tort claims. It should be noted that there is no insurance for intentional tort. There are three types of offences; negligence, wilful tort and strict liability. The elements of each are slightly different.
However, the litigation process is basically the same. The meaning of this maxim is that “the thing speaks for itself”. In some cases, the general rule of assertion of negligence on the part of the defendant is exempted by applying the maxim above, and in cases where an accident occurs due to the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff only has to prove the accident and nothing more. Since, according to the above maxim, there would be a presumption of negligence. Thus, if A accuses B of negligence, A must prove that B acted negligently. Notwithstanding this general rule, in some cases, the mere fact that a particular accident occurred may constitute prima facie evidence of negligence. So if a hammer falls from a window, it could be nonsense. But if the chair falls out of the window, it is gross negligence. Another difference between contracts and tort arises from the nature of the damages claimed in each case. In contracts, the plaintiff will claim liquidated damages, while in tort, he will claim unliquidated damages. If a person brought an action for recovery of a predetermined and fixed amount, he or she would have claimed liquidated damages.
On the other hand, if he has brought an action for realization of an amount that the court may award at its discretion, he is deemed to have claimed unliquidated damages. In any event, there are certain special cases (in addition to criminal injustice) which, admittedly, constitute an exception to the rule of irrelevance of the motive in tort law in which the ground is relevant. These are: a) Injustice of defamation on a privileged occasion – privilege is lost when a malicious motive is demonstrated. (b) Malicious Law Enforcement. (c) Harmful lying, defamation of property, etc. (d) Harassment. (e) conspiracy. (f) Unlawful interference with the lawful activities of others. g) The malicious motive may aggravate the damage. A medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature that prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the essential acts that constitute their usual and habitual daily activities for at least 90 days within 180 days immediately after the injury or impairment occurs.