People who become licensees by receiving the consent to occupy or use a particular land are usually dubbed “naked” or “bare” licensees. This may be an unpleasant name for such a person, but they are referred to as such due to the fact that their consent is the mere factor that differentiates a licensee from a trespasser.

Stemming from all the way back into the late 19th century, strict liability concerning dangerous substances such as toxic wastes has been a growing issue and area of practice. Instances concerning these usually involve those in which commonly-held hazardous materials are maintained in equally dangerous areas. 

It would be different, for instance, if explosives were stored in a city as opposed to a more isolated rural area. If an explosion were to take place in the rural region, strict liability would not be imposed on the the explosives itself, but instead on the way in which they may have been stored incorrectly. In addition to explosives, the following are examples of dangerous substances: sewage accumulation, flammable liquids, and toxic fumes.

In terms of the plaintiff filing suit against the defendant in reference to their use of dangerous substances, such as toxic wastes, the former must make sure of three qualifications to provide an adequate case against the latter. These include: the risk of injury stemming from the failure of the defendant’s safety precautions, the futility existent in the defendant’s attempt to eliminate any risk of injury, and the eventual harm that has arisen from their handling of such abnormally dangerous substances. 

Intent also does not present any type of defense as the court will not take into account any presence or lack thereof of intentions in connection to the incident involving liability attached to dangerous substances or activities. Examples of such dangerous activities include the following: “demolition,” transportation of hazardous chemicals, inadequate disposal of toxic wastes, and “radioactive emissions.” Another such dangerous activity would be the harboring of wild animals who are deemed as dangerous to society and possibly even illegal to maintain as household animals in neighborhoods. 

In relation to fire hazards, individuals are held liable depending upon whether or not they started the fire or even if products were flammable to begin with and lacked the adequate warning to inform the consumer of such a vital piece of information. If, products are at the center of such a liability attached to them as fire hazards, the following must exist: there must be proof that they posed danger as being “highly or unusually flammable,” this defect caused the harm from the fire, and this same defect was present at the time of the original sale as well. Acknowledging rights attached to cases concerning animal liability and fire hazards is important to the safety of everyone.

The scope of the problem with proximate cause lies in a few different areas, especially in its name. The name given to the direct cause of an accident or incident leading to injury, is referred to as ‘proximate’. The term proximate has long been known to mean near, or in the vicinity of, not actual. 

This gives a misconception to the name, as if the cause was near as opposed to, the actual one. Other issues arise deeper within proximate cause, and that is with the scope of liability and its extent. Controversy exists as to where liability should be extended to a defendant, based on their responsibility or duty. Along with these two issues, there are several more controversial ones that exist within the realms of proximate cause. 

    

Unforeseeable consequences are occurrences that could not be held liable against a defendant, due to their unprecedented risk. The fact that the risks related to these consequences happening are not clear and evident, makes it impossible for a defendant to be aware of them. By not being aware of these risks, a defendant could not have prevented the resulting cause. Sometimes unforeseeable consequences occur due to an unforeseen intervening cause, that happened to occur at a time in other to contribute to the accident. The absence of knowledge or existence of these factors relieves the duty of responsibility of a defendant, over the plaintiffs. Most cases relating to unforeseeable consequences are ruled in favor of the defendant, absolving them from damages pertaining to the plaintiff.

Intervening causes in a negligence case deal with contributing factors that interfere with the outcome of a direct cause. These causes usually alter the result of the original cause, and occur at a different time. These causes have additional consequences to the plaintiff and may worsen their situation. Intervening causes may not be attached to a defendant, especially if they are merely existent due to another contributing person or factor. 

Natural causes such as weather may be held as a responsibility to a defendant, and must be addressed in terms of safety. Criminal acts are also acts that may be intervening causes that pose a responsibility on the defendant. The defendant must protect the persons under their duty or responsibility from a series of different factors at given time.                 

                                                                                                                                                                              

The purpose of a jury in a negligence case is to make a verdict based on the evidence presented. In the court, the jury reviews all evidence in terms of proximate cause, intervening causes, foreseeable/unforeseeable risks, etc.. Using this information they then look at the responsibility or duty of a defendant and decide whether it was their ‘job’ to protect the plaintiff from the occurrence or accident that happened.

If it is decided that it was the defendant’s duty to conduct an act, they may be held negligible for the accident occurred. Once this happens, the defendant is liable for all damages that the plaintiff sustained.

In a court, the plaintiff presents all the evidence gathered against a defendant, in an attempt to prove their negligence in a case. The evidence will mainly consist of a detailed account of an incident through which the plaintiff has suffered an injury. The injury has occurred due to an action or lack of action, by the defendant. In such cases, the defendant would have a responsibility or duty over the plaintiff, under which they have failed to protect them. 

Such duties could include making an area that they own or are responsible for safe, and maintaining its safety while being used by others. The failure by a defendant to complete a certain task under a duty, can also lead to a negligent injury. An example would be installing some sort of safety measure in relation to a given area, that would keep its users safe. The direct cause of injury is commonly referred to as the proximate cause. 

This is the actual act (or failure to act) that has been the main reason why the occurrence happened, and why a plaintiff was injured. Proving such a cause can be difficult, especially if there are intervening causes involved. In a case, a jury must be able to look at all causes and any contributing factors as explained by both the plaintiff and the defendants, to determine the reason behind the injury. It may seem that once such information has come to light, stating the decision of the actual cause is easy, but nothing ever is with tort

A jury and a court of law, are the solid base in a negligence case, in handing out a decision based on all the facts surrounding the case. Having a jury decide the case eases the process somewhat, and does not impose the investigation solely on a judge. 

Intervening causes are an added cause that occurs after the main cause by a defendant.

 

 

Normal intervening causes are mainly seen as foreseeable and ones in which the risk can be addressed, prior to their occurrence. Usually in these cases liability is imposed upon a defendant for the damages sustained due to these consequences. These causes are found in any 'normal' situation and are capable of happening under certain justifiable circumstances. 

 

 

It is highly important to assess the possible intervening risks that remain for any existing risk, in other to fully attempt to diminish them prior to an actual occurrence happening. Preventive measures against such risks assist in reducing liability to a defendant over a plaintiff's negligence claim

One of the common issues dealing with proximate cause lies with the term itself. For a long time, there has been an increased discussion as to the term "proximate" being put before the word cause, referring to an 'actual' cause leading to a legal issue. 

 

 

In general, the term proximate is defined as near, or close, so to apply it to a legal term that is supposed to describe an actual cause may seem misleading. However, this is perhaps seen as one of the minor issues due the fact that an extensive understanding of the term over many years in the court systems

 

 

Numerous discussions deal with the reach of proximate cause as a general extent, to where causes may be determined. Two of these contradicting theories encounter the scope of liabilitynegligent

 

 

The issues in determining proximate cause also deal with the following: the simple fact of determining the culpability of the defendant in bringing an injury to a plaintiff, also the disbursement of damages regarding the injury, liability as it pertains to foreseeable consequences, and also any additional contributing parties to the injury. All these problems contribute to a great deal of confusion when making a determination of causation in a case, and can delay its outcome. 

 

Unforeseeable consequences deals with additional outcomes to an injury that could occur, without the realization or knowledge by a person found negligent damages

 

 

The main reason behind a defendant being held liable for negligence, and damages, is when the act was clearly 'foreseeable' and caused directly by the probable and natural consequences of an act that was done by the defendant, or an act that the defendant failed to take part in. 

 

 

This does not include any outside contributing factors, including actions by the plaintiff themselves. Unforeseeable consequences are harder to prove and demonstrate, and make for tedious research. Sometimes  points like these are the main contributing factors to controversy in tort law, and more specifically in negligence cases, which adds to the reputation of such cases. 

A tort is a civil wrong committed against someone, in which the injured party can sue for damages. In personal injury cases, the injured party will attempt to receive compensation to cover losses due to medical expenses and to pay for damages.

Tort law determines whether a person may be held legally responsible for injury against another, and what type of compensation the injured party is entitled to. There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach of the duty, causation, and injury. In order to claim damages there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant to the plaintiff which results in injury to the plaintiff. The three main types of torts are negligence, strict liability, and intentional torts.

Torts are civil wrongs that are committed against an individual and cause harm to that individual. Sometimes, depending on the nature of a tort, it may also be considered a crime. Intentional torts occur when the defendant is aware that his actions will cause injury to another. In cases of intentional torts, criminal prosecution may be brought against a defendant as well as civil action.

There are two types of damages claimed in tort law: compensatory and punitive. Punitive damages are exceptional damages offered to the plaintiff when the injuries caused by the defendant were particularly heinous in nature, and are often awarded in intentional torts. The purpose of punitive damages in tort law is to punish the defendant for wrongdoing, deter future wrongdoing, and reward the plaintiff for pain and suffering.

Because the process of developing tort law is influenced heavily by precedence, there is a common public interest in the outcome of tort cases. The public has good reason to expect that they may be affected by the same policy in the future. Tort law deals with the process of weighing the interests of both parties in order to achieve a fair outcome, which can often be achieved by applying policy.

However, when a court decides a case where no precedence has been set, they are affecting future policy. The process of developing tort law is constantly changing due to rulings in issues of first impression and by overruling outdated precedents.

In order to determine liability in tort law, a court must decide whether the act committed by the defendant was unlawful and if there is a need for the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries incurred.

Precedence is a large part of tort law; past judicial decisions will effect the opinion of the court. How each of the parties will bear the loss is also considered in determining liability. If the defendant is a larger group with the ability to shift its losses, as opposed to the plaintiff who may be financially ruined due to the injuries incurred, the courts may find a greater reason to hold the defendants responsible. The court will also determine whether the defendant’s actions are due to negligence or a strict liability tort.

Motive is the reasons behind a person’s actions and may be broken down into intent and ulterior motive. Motive is taken into account in determining liability especially in cases where the defendant’s and plaintiff’s argument is evenly matched.  Especially in cases of aggravated offenses, such as fraud, violence, or cruelty, the defendant’s improper motive will make it more likely for the plaintiff to receive punitive damages, which reward the plaintiff for pain and suffering.

In regards to personal injury law, motive is examined based on negligence and intentional torts. A person’s motive in cases of negligence, when careless actions cause harm, is not to intentionally injure the plaintiff. Intentional torts, however, include motives to cause harm to another person.

Historically, a plaintiff could not bring suit against a defendant without obtaining a writ from the King which demanded that the case be heard before the courts. This system was very strict and only allowed for a plaintiff to collect damages under only two conditions: the action of trespass or the action of trespass on the case. The action of trespass is primarily related to criminal action- direct injuries to a plaintiff caused by a defendant.

Trespass on the case deals injuries that could be traced back to the defendant’s actions as a secondary cause. If the defendant’s actions indirectly set into motion other actions which injured a plaintiff, the defendant could be held liable for trespass on the case. This concept of holding a defendant liable for causing injury to another and forcing the defendant to compensate for these injuries is where modern tort law originated.

In order to file a claim for personal injury and hold a defendant liable for compensation, a plaintiff must file a complaint and summon the defendant. This must be done within the statute of limitations, which is typically three years from the time of the accident. It is beneficial for a plaintiff to file a lawsuit immediately because there is a process of discovery and depositions which must take place before the case goes to trial.

During this process all evidence and witnesses may be examined and questioned by both parties’ attorneys. The parties are also given the option to settle the case, which may be facilitated by a mediator. If no settlement is reached, the case proceeds to trial where a judge or a judge and jury decide the case.

The necessity for a negligence case to be tried in a court of law is essential and evident. Tort law, like any other law is tough to decide upon when an enforcement or violation issues arises, and is furthermore tedious. In negligence cases, a court appoints a jury to make a decision upon a case based on the direct or circumstantial evidence that is available to them. 

The jury must decide whether the misconduct of one party under their responsibility of a given duty, directly caused harm or injury to another party. If the jury finds that the party is negligent, then that person or persons, will be held liable for all damages caused to the victim. 

Negligence cases are highly common and usually deal with injury related to accidents in stores, restaurants, public places, motor vehicle accidents, etc.. These cases require clear indisputable evidence that highlights the misconduct of the responsible party, as proof that a negligent act lead to such accident or injury.

The burden of proof a plaintiff faces in a case relates to four elements of proof that must exist in order for them to be able to prove that a negligent act not only existed, but that the act by a defendant led to the injury sustained by the plaintiff. 

These four elements relate to the following: that the defendant was under responsibility of a legal duty (to protect),  that there was a failure in proper conduct by that party, to show that this failure led directly to the injury caused to the plaintiff, and finally that an injury actually occurred and is evident.  

All these details must be presented to a court in the form of evidence, which can be direct or circumstantial. Provided that this proof is given clearly to the court, and the proof confirms the negligent act, the defendant would be held liable for his or her actions and the damages endured by the plaintiff.

Circumstantial evidence pertains to a type of evidence that exists to indirectly prove a case, and is not as evident or clear as direct evidence. Since direct evidence for a case would be a witness account, or perhaps a video containing the act, it can incriminate the defendant to the negligent act.  Such evidence can be the physical remnants of an accident or injury, and can be proven through a series of scientific tests and theories. 

Forensic science is one of the key components used to provide circumstantial evidence in a case, and has been successful in doing so. There is an type of circumstantial evidence, which is also referred to as a doctrine in the field, that serves to prove negligence known as res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur requires that four elements be provided in order for the evidence to be valid and existent. The term itself is derived from the Latin phrase “ the thing speaks for itself”, referring to the accident. 

A case that provides a res ipsa loquitur evidence must meet four demanding factors of such a type of circumstantial evidence. These four elements are:  that the accident existed solely due to the misconduct of the defendant, and could not have happened otherwise, that the accident happened under the responsibility and/or attention of the defendant, that the plaintiff did not take part in any actions that would contribute to the accident’s occurrence, and finally that the detailed evidence and description of the accident be made highly available to the defendant.  The elements provided give a clear account as to the failure in responsibility by the defendant as well as it’s direct correlation to the injury sustained by the plaintiff, and make such evidence accessible to the defendant.