Reading 1. What is Tort Law

A tort is a civil wrong other than a breach of contract. This wrong causes harm to a person or property and may be physical, emotional or financial. Tort law has two aims: to redress a wrong and to stop potential tortfeasors from committing such wrongs.

The most common remedy in tort law is monetary damages. The injured party may also sue for injunction to stop tortious conduct.

There are three categories of torts: intentional torts (e.g. assault and battery), negligent torts (e.g. a traffic accident, caused by failing to obey traffic rules) and strict liability torts (e.g. making and selling defective products).

While a crime is committed against society, a tort is committed against an individual. Torts are handled in the civil courts where the injured party brings an action against the wrongdoer.

The party who brings an action in tort is called the claimant ( plaintiff, US) and the other party is called the defendant. Unlike in criminal cases, where the defendant may be found guilty and punished, in tort cases the defendant may be found liable and ordered to pay compensatory damages and sometimes punitive damages.          

Compensatory damages compensate the victim for the harm, and punitive damages punish the tortfeasor. 

Exercise 1. Answer the questions based on the text.  

 

1. What is tort?

2. What are the aims of tort law?

3. What are the remedies available at tort law?

4. What are the three categories of torts? Give examples.

5. How is a tort different from a crime?

6. How is an action in tort started and what are the parties to the case called?

7. What is the difference between the outcomes in criminal cases and cases in tort?

8. What are the two types of damages awarded in a tort case and what are their purposes?  

Exercise 2. Match the words and word combinations with their synonyms.

1. to redress	a. a wrongdoer
2. a tortfeasor	b. to remedy
3. to handle	c. a plaintiff
4. to bring an action	d. responsible
5. а claimant	e. to start a lawsuit
6. liable	f. to hear

Exercise 3. Match the words to make word combinations (there may be several options).

1. to redress	a. liable
2. tortious	b. a wrong
3. to be found	c. an action
4. to bring	d. wrong
5. civil	e. conduct
6. to cause	f. injunction
7. to sue for	g. liability
8. to commit	h. a tort
9. monetary	i. damages
10. injured	j. party
11. punitive	k. harm
12. strict	l. damages

 

Exercise 4. Fill in the gaps with suitable words from the text.

1.Making and selling …………products is a strict…………tort.

2.A defendant may be…………to pay damages to the………….

3.Compensatory damages compensate the …………party for the…………suffered.

4.Monetary damages is the most common …………in tort law.

5. The …………. who …………an action in tort is called the claimant.

 

Exercise 5. Fill in the gaps with suitable prepositions.

1. to cause harm …. a person; 2.to stop …. committing wrongs; 3.to sue …. injunction; 4. to commit a crime …. society; 5.to bring an action …. a wrongdoer; 6.to result …. fine; 7.to compensate …. the harm.

Reading 2.

Read the case Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants and complete the glossary

 

1. to sue for (gross negligence)	подавать в суд, возбудить иск (за грубую небрежность)
2. to cover medical expenses	покрыть медицинские расходы
3. a case	судебное дело
4. trial	судебное разбирательство
5. the jury	присяжные
6. appeal (against) the verdict	апелляция, обжалование судебного решения
7. to settle out of court	урегулировать спор без судебного разбирательства
8. action	иск
9. complaint	иск, жалоба
10. judgment	решение
11. to hear evidence	заслушивать свидетельские показания
12. frivolous lawsuit	необоснованный иск

 

Case study: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Part 1.

In 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from New Mexico bought coffee from a Macdonald’s drive through restaurant. While parked, she put the cup between her legs and accidentally spilled the hot drink on her lap. Stella suffered serious burns over 16 per cent of her body and had to be hospitalised for 8 days. Her daughter had to look after her for three more weeks and the medical treatment lasted for over two years.

Eventually, she sued the company for gross negligence and demanded compensation of $20, 000, claiming that the coffee was “defectively manufactured”. The company offered her just $800, which did not cover even her medical expenses. The case went to trial and the jury found for the claimant. They said that the company was 80 percent liable for the incident and Stella was 20% liable. They awarded Stella Liebeck $160, 000 in compensatory damages for her pain and suffering and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced as Stella Liebeck was partially responsible. To avoid costly appeals against the verdict, the two parties ultimately settled out of court for a sum of about $600, 000.

Exercise 6.

The case Liebeck v. Macdonald’s Restaurants follows several stages which are listed below. Try to identify each stage.

Facts …………………………………….

Action ……………………………….......

Complaint ……………………………….

Judgment ……………………………….

Reasoning …………………………………

Damages awarded ……………………….

 

Exercise 7.

The case gave rise to the attacks on “frivolous lawsuits” in the United States. Here is some of the evidence that the jury heard at the trial.

Decide which arguments are for the claimant and which for the defence. They are in the jumbled order. Put them in the table below.

 

· The coffee was served at a dangerously hot temperature of 180-190F (82-88C) and was likely to cause serious injury.

· She was the passenger in the parked car.

· Nobody wants to admit that it was her own fault, when such things happen there is always somebody else to blame.

· The company received more than 600 previous reports of injury from its coffee but was not taking it seriously.

· The reason why the company served coffee at this temperature was that people wanted it hot; otherwise it might be sued for coffee being too cold.

· The company was aware of the potential risk to consumers but refused to change its policy.

· Such huge verdicts promote compensation culture in the US.

· The number of injuries is insignificant compared to the billions of coffee cups sold per year.

· The company admitted that it did not warn consumers of the potential risk.

· The punitive damages amounted to about 2 days of revenue for McDonald’s coffee sales.

 

               

 

Arguments for the claimant	Arguments for the defense

 

Exercise 8. Go through the case notes again and find more arguments for and against the judgment for Stella Liebeck.

Exercise 9. Consider the arguments carefully and give your own judgement.

 

Exercise 10. Word building. Complete the following table, using the dictionary if necessary.

 

Noun	Verb
Complaint
	Appeal
	Sue
Trial
	Settle
Damages

Exercise 11. Choose one of the words from the table to complete the following sentences.

 

1. A woman filed a __________ against Starbucks for allegedly serving her too much ice in the drink. She _____________ that iced coffee contains too little caffeine.

2. In law, _______________ is an agreement between the litigating parties, reached before or after the court action begins. It may be preferable ____________ the case to avoid legal costs or high punitive _________________.

3. The court ruled that the defendant cannot be ______________ again for the same offence on double jeopardy grounds.

4. _____________ are a sum of money awarded by the court to be paid by the court to the victim as a compensation for the harm or loss.

5. If a party does not agree with the verdict given, it can ___________ it.

6. The leaking roof seriously _____________ the tenant’s furniture and he _____________ the landlord claiming negligence.

 

12. Problem solving

Negligent torts are when the defendant’s actions were unreasonably unsafe or careless. Negligence is the most prominent tort liability. Negligence acts include car accidents, clinical negligence, worker’s negligence, and product liability cases. There are five elements that must be proven by the plaintiff to establish negligence:

 

· The plaintiff was owed a duty of care through a special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient) or some other principle

· There was a dereliction or breach of that duty

· The tortfeasor directly caused the injury [but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury].

· The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of that breach

§ The damage was not too remote; there was proximate cause to show the breach caused the damage

 

duty of care	обязанность соблюдать осторожность
dereliction	упущение, халатность
breach	нарушение
damage	вред
remote	не имеющий прямой причинной связи
proximate cause	непосредственная причина

 

Problem: Woman v. Act of God:

 An Israeli woman sued a TV station for making an inaccurate weather forecast. The station predicted good weather but it rained. The woman claimed that the forecast caused her to dress lightly and as a result she caught the flu, missed a week of work, and had to spend money on medication. She further claimed that the whole incident caused her stress. She sued for $1, 000.

 

What would be your ruling in this case? Consider the five elements of negligence. *

⇐ Предыдущая234567891011Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: