RULES There are 4 types of torts intentional torts (Did you intend the action? Not if you intended to cause harm. Some examples are; assault, battery, and false imprisonment). Strict liability tort (holds a defendant responsible for their actions regardless of their intent, so it is not cause-based, for example rape) economic tort (committed when a defendant interferes with a plaintiff's economic interests by committing an unlawful act against a third party) and torts of negligence, which is the focus of this case. Negligence- is a legal theory that imposes liability on individuals who fail to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others. To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show the following: Breach, Cause and Harm all have an element of reasonability Duty- is there a duty? Is the duty foreseeable? Can come from statue or proximity (is there closeness, physical, mental, relational) The breach is standard of care from a reasonable person's view. Breach- Was there a breach of the duty? Did someone fail to rise to the standard) Cause- Did the breach cause the harm? There are a few things to remember here. Firstly, actual-But for cause or immediate cause, which is defined as such, the plaintiff would not have suffered harm "but for" the defendant's breach. Secondly, proximity, which is the nearness in space, time, or relationship, and reasonably foreseeable cause, which means that an ordinary person could conclude that a threat to health or safety exists. Also, some ways to assess proximity and reasonableness are through the concept of remoteness: how far away? And intervening acts: Was there a dominant act that added fuel to the fire? Harm- Is the harm the result of the breach? And is the harm reasonable and foreseeable? You need all 4 to prove negligence. You don't need a defense if say only 3 have been proved. Also, there are two types of harms 1-Injury (persons) 2-Damage (property) Now let's discuss some of the Defences for negligence Illegality- The defence of illegality is grounded on the principle that a plaintiff should not be permitted to recover damages that arise from his or her own illegal or immoral conduct. Contributory negligence- considers relative degree of responsibility (blameworthiness) and allows the court to apportion damages. Admission of guilt- the accused acknowledges that they have committed a criminal offense. Voluntary Assumption of risk- which means somebody willingly puts themselves in a position where they know injury may result. Consent - you consent to whatever the risks might be Furthermore, placing someone else at fault for one's actions is known as "vicarious responsibility." Employers may be held vicariously accountable for the behaviour of their employees if there is an employment relationship. Finally, let's go over some of the remedies that exist, firstly, General damages, which are non-pecuniary losses. Secondly, Special damages, which are Quantifiable monetary loss. Thirdly, Punitive or exemplary damages which are assessed to award victim. Lastly, injunctions or restitution may also be ordered.Frank Carra drives a truck for WTL. During an otherwise routine journey, about a kilometre after passing a road construction zone a deer jumped onto the highway and caused Carra to swerve out of his lane and onto a strip of gravel that divided northbound and southbound trafc. Carra's truck collided with a signpost, which was left bent with more than half of the sign protruding out of the ground. Carra could not remove the post and while he thought about calling the police, he failed to do so. About a day later, Samuel Oke, a driver for Highway Transport, Inc. (HTI) was travelling in the opposite direction on the same highway. Although the solid yellow lines on the road prohibited such a maneuver, Oke attempted to pass the slow moving vehicle of Prof. Jones by driving on the gravel divider. As he did so, he saw the protruding sign and turned to avoid it. His car hit the slow moving vehicle driven by Prof. Jones. Prof. Jones sues Carra, WTL, Oke and HTI for negligence. Will Prof. Jones succeed