The Tort Law is covered under the civil suits and is generally handled by the civil court. The tort law aims to address any wrong that is done by one person against another and the one who has committed the tortuous activity is likely to make amends via monetary compensation or otherwise.
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE KEY CONCEPTS OF TORT LAW Issue
Three major characters are at play in the current scenario. Corriane, Dylan and Hussain they share a common kitchen and dining space. Dylan became very angry when he saw his cup was used and it remained unwashed. He first tried to hit the cup to a wall narrowly missing Corraine’s arms. He then turns to Hussain’s room who was listening to music with his girlfriend Nicole. Dylan harmed Nicole by lifting up Hussain’s cup, which was filled with hot coffee. However, Dylan was not aware of the same. Hussain strangled Dylan when he realized that his girlfriend was in pain. Dylan passed out and Corriane tried to bring back sense in him. Dylan did not realize that it was Corriane and hit him when he regained his senses.
The Tort Law can be split into three major categories. According to Engstrom 1,these are the negligent torts, intentional torts and strict liability torts. In this case, the negligent tort and intentional torts apply. The negligent tort is applicable when the person fails to exercise and identify certain care, which is required in the case. In this case, throwing hot coffee on Nicole was a classic example of an accident that can be applied under negligent tort. The intentional tort is performed when a person is willfully harming another individual. Hussain’s action of trying and strangling Dylan is considered as an intentional tort. Other incidents like assault and frauds fall under this category.
There has been an enormous amount of cases where the Supreme Court has codified and ratified the Tort law cases. The negligence cases hold that the plaintiff should be aware of the faults or the troubles that are coming its way. For instance, in the BALTIMORE AND OHIO
1 Engstrom, Nora Freeman. “When Cars Crash: The Automobile’s Tort Law Legacy.” Wake Forest L. Rev. 53 (2018): 293.
R.R. V. GOODMAN2 case, it was made clear that Goodman who was the plaintiff should be held responsible for his own death because he should have been aware of the noises and the
signals that the train was arriving. However, according to Tilley3, Dylan should be aware of the fact that hot coffee was there in the cup. When he is lifting the cup, he can see and feel that the cup is filled with hot coffee. It can harm someone if it is touched. In Bethel v. New
York City Transit Authority4 it was decided that the common carriers should ensure the same duty of care as all the other tortfeasor. Every individual is responsible for the safety and security of others in the society. This means that one cannot act in a manner that is likely to harm the wellbeing of others in society.
The Caparo Industries plc v Dickman5 is another such case where it was decided that the harm should be foreseeable and the conduct of the defendant should cause some harm to the plaintiff. The liability that is imposed on the defendant or the plaintiff should be justified under the court of law.
To conclude, it should be identified that the Tort Law aims to control and regulate the conduct of different individuals in the society. There are frauds that are conducted intentionally and there are torts that are simply caused due to negligence. The primary aim of the court is to check the activities of the individuals in society. The acts of one individual should not in any way harm the well being of others in society.
2 BALTIMORE AND OHIO R.R. V. GOODMAN, 275 U.S. 66 (1927)
3 Tilley, Cristina Carmody. “Tort Law inside out.” Yale LJ 126 (2016): 1320.
4 Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, 703 N.E.2d 1214 (1998)
5 Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman  UKHL 2
Tilley, Cristina Carmody. “Tort Law inside out.” Yale LJ 126 (2016): 1320.
Engstrom, Nora Freeman. “When Cars Crash: The Automobile’s Tort Law Legacy.” Wake
Forest L. Rev. 53 (2018): 293.
BALTIMORE AND OHIO R.R. V. GOODMAN, 275 U.S. 66 (1927)
Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, 703 N.E.2d 1214 (1998)
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman  UKHL 2