Tort Liability in the United States under Personal Injury
🔹 Introduction to Tort Liability in the U.S.
A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy, usually in the form of monetary damages. In the United States, tort liability is a key component of personal injury law, which covers injuries caused by negligence, intentional acts, or strict liability.
Tort law serves three main purposes:
Compensation – To make the injured party whole.
Deterrence – To discourage careless or harmful behavior.
Justice/Fairness – To allocate losses to the responsible party.
🔹 Types of Torts in Personal Injury
1. Negligence
Negligence is the most common basis for personal injury claims. It arises when a defendant fails to exercise reasonable care, causing harm to another.
Elements of Negligence:
Duty of care
Breach of duty
Causation (actual and proximate)
Damages
Case Law:
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) – Established the principle of proximate cause; a defendant is liable only for foreseeable harms.
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932, UK) – Influenced U.S. negligence law; established the modern duty of care principle, later applied in U.S. courts.
2. Intentional Torts
Intentional torts occur when a defendant intentionally causes harm. Examples include:
Assault and battery
False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Case Law:
Garratt v. Dailey (1955, WA) – A child was held liable for battery when intentionally moving a chair that caused the plaintiff to fall.
I. de S. et ux v. W. de S. (1348, historical influence) – Early intentional tort principles influencing U.S. law.
3. Strict Liability
Under strict liability, the defendant is liable regardless of fault or negligence. Common in:
Abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., explosives)
Product liability
Case Law:
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963, California) – Established strict product liability; manufacturer liable for defective products causing injury.
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868, UK influence) – Introduced strict liability for hazardous activities, later applied in U.S. contexts.
🔹 Key Doctrines Affecting Tort Liability
1. Comparative and Contributory Negligence
Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff’s recovery reduced by their share of fault.
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975, CA) – Adopted pure comparative negligence in California.
Contributory Negligence: Plaintiff barred from recovery if partially at fault (rare today).
2. Assumption of Risk (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
Plaintiff knowingly accepts the risk of injury. Common in recreational and sports cases.
Case Law:
Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. (1929, NY) – Plaintiff assumed risk by riding amusement ride; recovery barred.
3. Res Ipsa Loquitur
"The thing speaks for itself" – allows the court to infer negligence when the harm ordinarily would not occur without negligence, even if direct evidence is lacking.
Case Law:
Byrne v. Boadle (1863, UK, applied in U.S.) – Barrel of flour fell from window; defendant presumed negligent.
4. Vicarious Liability
Employers can be held liable for torts committed by employees within the scope of employment.
Case Law:
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998, U.S. Supreme Court) – Employer liable for harassment by employee under respondeat superior.
🔹 Remedies in Tort Cases
Compensatory Damages – For actual loss, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain & suffering.
Punitive Damages – To punish grossly negligent or intentional conduct.
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) – Established limits on punitive damages under due process.
Injunctions – Rare in personal injury; may prevent ongoing harm.
🔹 Tort Reform and Limitations
Many U.S. states have enacted tort reform laws to limit liability or damages, such as:
Caps on non-economic damages
Limits on attorney fees
Statutes of limitation for filing claims
Case Law:
Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995) – Courts balance tort rights with public policy considerations.
🔹 Conclusion
Tort liability in the United States under personal injury law is broad, encompassing:
Negligence – Carelessness causing foreseeable harm.
Intentional Torts – Deliberate harmful acts.
Strict Liability – Liability without fault.
Key doctrines like comparative negligence, assumption of risk, res ipsa loquitur, and vicarious liability influence outcomes. Remedies aim to compensate, punish, and deter, while tort reform shapes liability limits. U.S. case law provides the framework for evaluating fault, foreseeability, and damages in personal injury cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments