Torts: What Must be Proved

To prove the existence of a tort, the following must be proven: Negligence, damage/injury and a causal connection between the damage and negligence.

1. Negligence

So we look for the negligent act of the tortfeasor. Criminal negligence will come under the jurisdiction of criminal law. The negligence we are looking for here is Culpa Aquiliana/quasi-delict (see Negligence.)

When searching for negligence, watch out for the following:

A. Presumption juris tantum

A.k.a. rebuttable presumption. There are cases where the law actually says that negligence exists because of specific details mentioned. When this happens, the law in question governs how the case will be resolved. The victim, however, must prove that that particular law has been violated.

B. Res ipsa loquitur

This principle literally means "the thing speaks for itself." When considerations of public policy (i.e. acts done for the common good) can't be proven, or are difficult to prove with competent evidence. Ex. a drunk man on a motorcycle doubling over into the neighbor's rose bushes (ouch!) and claiming that he's sober. More on this later.

2. Damage/injury

Obviously!

3. Causal relationship between damage and negligence

It must be proven that the negligence of the tortfeasor is the logical and natural cause of the damage. This is known as Proximate Cause. Be careful because there are actual instances where the actions of the victim himself can be the cause of the injury. If that is proven, the victim can't recover damages. Ex. the victim, eager to make money from a tort, drops a banana peel on a wet floor of the defendant's office building and steps on it -unfortunately he's caught by the security cameras in the act. There is also what is known as Contributory Negligence: the victim is partly responsible for his injuries. If contributory negligence is proven, damages can be reduced based on the extent of the victim's own negligence.