A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else
to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious
act, called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is
not necessarily a crime, as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to
criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit.
In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit must show that the actions or lack
of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil
law jurisdictions is delict. Legal injuries are not limited to physical
injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations
of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as auto
accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement,
and environmental pollution. While many torts are the result of negligence, tort law also
recognizes intentional torts, where a person has intentionally acted in a way that harms
another, and in a few cases "strict liability" which allows recovery without the need to
demonstrate negligence. Tort law is different from criminal law in
that: torts may result from negligent but not intentional or criminal actions and tort
lawsuits have a lower burden of proof such as preponderance of evidence rather than beyond
a reasonable doubt. Sometimes a plaintiff may prevail in a tort case even if the person
who caused the harm was acquitted in an earlier criminal trial. For example, O.J. Simpson
was acquitted in criminal court and later found liable for the tort of wrongful death.
History Roman law contained provisions for torts in
the form of delict, which later influenced the civil law jurisdictions in Continental
Europe, but a distinctive body of law arose in the common law world traced to English
tort law. The word 'tort' was first used in a legal context in the 1580s, although different
words were used for similar concepts prior to this time.
Medieval period Torts and crimes at common law originate in
the Germanic system of compensatory fines for wrongs, with no clear distinction between
crimes and other wrongs. In Anglo-Saxon law, most wrongs required payment in money or in
kind to the wronged person or their clan. Wīte was paid to the king or holder of a
court for disturbances of public order. Weregild, which was a murder fine based on a victim's
worth, was intended to prevent blood feuds. Some wrongs in later codes were botleas, that
is, unable to be compensated, and those convicted of a botleas crime were at the king's mercy.
Items or creatures which caused death were also destroyed as deodands. Assessing intention
was a matter for the court, but Alfred's code did distinguish unintentional injuries from
intentional ones, whereas culpability depended on status, age, and gender.
After the Norman Conquest, fines were paid only to courts or the king, and quickly became
a revenue source. A wrong became known as a tort or trespass, and there arose a division
between civil pleas and pleas of the crown. The petty assizes were established in 1166
as a remedy for interference with possession of freehold land. The trespass action was
an early civil plea in which damages were paid to the victim; if no payment was made,
the defendant was imprisoned. The plea arose in local courts for slander, breach of contract,
or interference with land, goods, or persons. Although the details of its exact origin are
unclear, it became popular in royal courts so that in the 1250s the writ of trespass
was created and made de cursu; however, it was restricted to interference with land and
forcible breaches of the king's peace. It may have arisen either out of the “appeal
of felony”, or assize of novel disseisin, or replevin. Later, after the Statute of Westminster
1285, in the 1360s, the “trespass on the case” action arose for when the defendant
did not direct force. As its scope increased, it became simply “action on the case”.
The English Judicature Act passed 1873 through 1875 abolished the separate actions of trespass
and trespass on the case. In 1401, the English case Beaulieu v Finglam
imposed strict liability for the escape of fire; additionally, strict liability was imposed
for the release of cattle. Negligently handling fire was of particular importance in these
societies given capacity for destruction and relatively limited firefighting resources.
Liability for common carrier, which arose around 1400, was also emphasized in the medieval
period. Unintentional injuries were relatively infrequent in the medieval period. As transportation
improved and carriages became popular in the 18th and 19th centuries, however, collisions
and carelessness became more prominent in court records. In general, scholars of England
such as William Blackstone took a hostile view to litigation, and rules against champerty
and maintenance and vexatious litigation existed. The restriction on assignment of a cause of
action is a related rule based on public policy. United States influence
The rights of victims to receive redress was regarded by later English scholars as one
of the rights of Englishmen. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which
was published in the late 18th century, contained a volume on "private wrongs" as torts and
even used the word "tort" in a few places. The United States tort law was influenced
by English law and Blackstone's treatise, with several state constitutions specifically
providing for redress for torts in addition to reception statutes which adopted English
law. However, tort law was viewed as relatively undeveloped by the mid-19th century; the first
American treatise on torts was published in the 1860s but the subject became particularly
established when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr wrote on the subject in the 1880s. Holmes'
writings have been described as the "first serious attempt in the common law world to
give torts both a coherent structure and a distinctive substantive domain", although
Holmes' summary of the history of torts has been critically reviewed.
Modern development The law of torts for various jurisdictions
has developed independently. In the case of the United States, a survey of trial lawyers
pointed to several modern developments, including strict liability for products based on Greenman
v. Yuba Power Products, the limitation of various immunities, comparative negligence,
broader rules for admitting evidence, increased damages for emotional distress, and toxic
torts and class action lawsuits. However, there has also been a reaction in terms of
tort reform, which in some cases have been struck down as violating state constitutions,
and federal preemption of state laws. Modern torts are heavily affected by insurance
and insurance law, as most cases are settled through claims adjustment rather than by trial,
and are defended by insurance lawyers, with the insurance policy, a deep pocket limit,
setting a ceiling on the possible payment. Comparative law
In the international comparison of modern tort law, common law jurisdictions based upon
English tort law have foundational differences from civil law jurisdiction, which may be
based on the Roman concept of delict. Even among common law countries, however, significant
differences exist. For example, in England legal fees of the winner are paid by the loser.
Common law systems include United States tort law, Australian tort law, Canadian tort law,
Irish tort law, and Scots Law of Delict. Israeli law of rabbinic damages is another example
although tort law in Israeli law is technically similar to English law as it was enacted by
British Mandate of Palestine authorities in 1944 and took effect in 1947. There is more
apparent split between the Commonwealth countries and the United States, although Canada may
be more influenced by the United States due to its proximity.
The United States has been perceived as particularly prone to filing tort lawsuits even relative
to other common law countries, although this perception has been criticized and debated.
As of 1987, class actions were relatively uncommon outside of the United States. As
of 1987, English law was less generous to the plaintiff in the following ways: contingent
fee arrangements were restricted, English judges tried more decisions and set damages
rather than juries, wrongful death lawsuits were relatively restricted, punitive damages
were relatively unavailable, the collateral source rule was restricted, and strict liability,
such as for product liability, was relatively unavailable. England's welfare state, such
as free healthcare through National Health Service, may limit lawsuits. On the other
hand, as of 1987 England had no workers compensation system and lawsuits due to workplace injuries
were relatively common and facilitated by trade unions, whereas in the United States
the system of workers compensation insurance prohibits lawsuits against the employer although
lawsuits against third parties such as manufacturers does occur. The United States also has faced
a rise in no-fault insurance for automobile liability in several states. In England, ombudsmen
may also take cases which could alternatively become tort lawsuits.
When comparing Australia and the United States, Australia's tort law is similarly state law;
however, there is a federal common law for torts unlike the United States. The influence
of the United States on Australia has been limited. The United States may have influenced
Australia's development of strict liability for products indirectly through legislation
affected by European Union, and in the 1990s class actions were introduced in Australia.
Australia has universal healthcare and 'welfare state' systems which also limit lawsuits.
In New Zealand, a no-fault accident compensation system has limited the development of personal
injury torts. Conflict of laws
In certain instances, different jurisdictions' law may apply to a tort, in which case rules
have developed for which law to apply. This occurs particularly in the United States,
where each of the 50 states may have different state laws, but also may occur in other countries
with a federal system of states, or internationally. Categories
Torts may be categorized in several ways, with a particularly common division between
negligent and intentional torts. Quasi-torts may be used to refer to torts which are similar
to but somewhat different from typical torts. Particularly in the United States, "collateral
tort" is used to refer to torts in labour law such as intentional infliction of emotional
distress; or wrongful dismissal; these evolving causes of action are debated and overlap with
contract law or other legal areas to some degree.
The standard action in tort is negligence. The tort of negligence provides a cause of
action leading to damages, or to relief, in each case designed to protect legal rights,
including those of personal safety, property, and, in some cases, intangible economic interests
or noneconomic interests such as the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress
in the United States. Negligence actions include claims coming primarily from car accidents
and personal injury accidents of many kinds, including clinical negligence, worker's negligence
and so forth. Product liability cases, such as those involving warranties, may also be
considered negligence actions or, particularly in the United States, may apply regardless
of negligence or intention through strict liability.
Intentional torts include, among others, certain torts arising from the occupation or use of
land. The tort of nuisance, for example, involves strict liability for a neighbor who interferes
with another's enjoyment of his real property. Trespass allows owners to sue for entrances
by a person on their land. Several intentional torts do not involve land. Examples include
false imprisonment, the tort of unlawfully arresting or detaining someone, and defamation,
where false information is broadcast and damages the plaintiff's reputation.
In some cases, the development of tort law has spurred lawmakers to create alternative
solutions to disputes. For example, in some areas, workers' compensation laws arose as
a legislative response to court rulings restricting the extent to which employees could sue their
employers in respect of injuries sustained during employment. In other cases, legal commentary
has led to the development of new causes of action outside the traditional common law
torts. These are loosely grouped into quasi-torts or liability torts.
Negligence
Negligence is a tort which arises from the breach of the duty of care owed by one person
to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. Although credited as appearing in
the United States in Brown v. Kendall, the later Scottish case of Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932], followed in England, brought England into line with the United States and established
the 'tort of negligence' as opposed to negligence as a component in specific actions. In Donoghue,
Mrs. Donoghue drank from an opaque bottle containing a decomposed snail and claimed
that it had made her ill. She could not sue Mr. Stevenson for damages for breach of contract
and instead sued for negligence. The majority determined that the definition of negligence
can be divided into four component parts that the plaintiff must prove to establish negligence.
The elements in determining the liability for negligence are:
The plaintiff was owed a duty of care through a special relationship 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 In certain cases, negligence can be assumed
under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; particularly in the United States, a related concept is
negligence per se. Proximate cause
Proximate cause means that you must be able to show that the harm was caused by the tort
you are suing for. The defense may argue that there was a prior cause or a superseding intervening
cause. A common situation where a prior cause becomes an issue is the personal injury car
accident, where the person re-injures an old injury. For example someone who has a bad
back is injured in the back in a car accident. Years later he is still in pain. He must prove
the pain is caused by the car accident, and not the natural progression of the previous
problem with the back. A superseding intervening cause happens shortly after the injury. For
example, if after the accident the doctor who works on you commits malpractice and injures
you further, the defense can argue that it was not the accident, but the incompetent
doctor who caused your injury. [1] Intentional torts
Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm
to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories:
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort.
Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant.
Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion.
An intentional tort requires an overt act, some form of intent, and causation. In most
cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual
but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. Causation
can be satisfied as long as the defendant was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Statutory torts A statutory tort is like any other, in that
it imposes duties on private or public parties, however they are created by the legislature,
not the courts. For example, the European Union's Product Liability Directive imposes
strict liability for defective products that harm people; such strict liability is not
uncommon although not necessarily statutory. As another example, in England common law
liability of a landowner to guests or trespassers was replaced by the Occupiers' Liability Act
1957; a similar situation occurred in the U.S. State of California in which a judicial
common law rule established in Rowland v. Christian was amended through a 1985 statute.
Statutory torts also spread across workplace health and safety laws and health and safety
in food. In some cases federal or state statutes may preempt tort actions, which is particularly
discussed in terms of the U.S. FDA Preemption; although actions in the United States for
medical devices are preempted due to Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., actions for medical drugs
are not due to Wyeth v. Levine. Nuisance
"Nuisance” is traditionally used to describe an activity which is harmful or annoying to
others such as indecent conduct or a rubbish heap. Nuisances either affect private individuals
or the general public. The claimant can sue for most acts that interfere with their use
and enjoyment of their land. In English law, whether activity was an illegal nuisance depended
upon the area and whether the activity was "for the benefit of the commonwealth", with
richer areas subject to a greater expectation of cleanliness and quiet. The case Jones v
Powell provides an early example, in which a person's professional papers were damaged
by the vapors of a neighboring brewery. Although the outcome of this case is unclear, Whitelocke
of the Court of the King's Bench is recorded as saying that since the water supply in area
was already contaminated, the nuisance was not actionable as it is "better that they
should be spoiled than that the commonwealth stand in need of good liquor".
In Rylands v. Fletcher, strict liability was established for a dangerous escape of some
hazard, including water, fire, or animals as long as the cause was not remote. In Cambridge
Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc), chemicals from a factory seeped through a
floor into the water table, contaminating East Anglia's water reservoirs.
Defamation Defamation is tarnishing the reputation of
someone; it has two varieties, slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel
is printed or broadcast defamation. The two otherwise share the same features: making
a factual assertion for which evidence does not exist. Defamation does not affect or hinder
the voicing of opinions, but does occupy the same fields as rights to free speech in the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or Article 10 of the European
Convention of Human Rights. Related to defamation in the U.S. are the actions for misappropriation
of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution
are often classified as dignitary torts as well.
Business torts
Business or economic torts typically involve commercial transactions, and include tortious
interference with trade or contract, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation.
Negligent misrepresentation torts are distinct from contractual cases involving misrepresentation
in that there is no privity of contract; these torts are likely to involve pure economic
loss which has been less-commonly recoverable in tort. One criterion for determining whether
economic loss is recoverable is the "foreseeability" doctrine. The economic loss rule is highly
confusing and inconsistently applied. In 2010, the supreme court of the U.S. state of Washington
replaced the economic loss doctrine with an "independent duty doctrine".
Economic antitrust torts has been somewhat been submerged by modern competition law.
However, in the United States, private parties are permitted in certain circumstances to
sue for anticompetitive practices, including under federal or state statutes or on the
basis of common law tortious interference, which may be based upon the Restatement of
Torts §766. Federal laws include the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 followed by the Clayton
Antitrust Act which restrict cartels and through Federal Trade Commission regulate mergers
and acquisitions. In the European Union, articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union apply but allowing private actions to enforce antitrust laws is under
discussion. Negligent misrepresentation as tort where
no contractual privity exists was disallowed in England by Derry v Peek [1889]; however,
this position was overturned in Hedley Byrne v Heller in 1964 so that such actions were
allowed if a "special relationship" existed between the plaintiff and defendant. United
States courts and scholars "paid lip-service" to Derry; however, scholars such as William
Prosser argued that it was misinterpreted by English courts. The case of Ultramares
Corporation v. Touche limited the liability of an auditor to known identified beneficiaries
of the audit and this rule was widely applied in the United States until the 1960s. The
Restatement of Torts expanded liability to "foreseeable" users rather than specifically
identified "foreseen" users of the information, dramatically expanding liability and affecting
professionals such as accountants, architects, attorneys, and surveyors. As of 1989, most
U.S. jurisdictions follow either the Ultramares approach or the Restatement approach.
The tort of deceit for inducement into a contract is a tort in English law, but in practice
has been replaced by actions under Misrepresentation Act 1967. In the United States, similar torts
existed but have become superseded to some degree by contract law and the pure economic
loss rule. Historically, fraudulent misrepresentation involving damages for economic loss may be
awarded under the "benefit-of-the-bargain" rule which awards the plaintiff the difference
between the value represented and the actual value. Beginning with Stiles v. White in Massachusetts,
this rule spread across the country as a majority rule with the "out-of-pocket damages" rule
as a minority rule. Although the damages under the "benefit-of-the-bargain" are described
as compensatory, the plaintiff is left better off than before the transaction. The economic
loss rule which emerged in the 20th century would eliminate these losses if applied strictly,
which has led to preclusion of the tort or an exception to allow the tort if not related
to a contract. Liability, defenses, and remedies
Indirect liability may arise due to some involvement, notably through joint and several liability
doctrines as well as forms of secondary liability. Liability may arise through enterprise liability.
Other concepts include market share liability. Vicarious liability
In certain cases, a person might be liable for their employee or child under the law
of agency through the doctrine of respondeat superior. For example, if a shop employee
spilled cleaning liquid on the supermarket floor and a victim fell and suffered injuries,
the plaintiff might be able to sue either the employee or the employer. There is considerable
academic debate about whether vicarious liability is justified on no better basis than the search
for a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory of efficient risk
allocation. Defenses
A successful defense absolves the defendant from full or partial liability for damages.
Apart from proof that there was no breach of duty, there are three principal defenses
to tortious liability. Consent and warning
Typically, a victim cannot hold another liable if the victim has implicitly or explicitly
consented to engage in a risky activity. This is frequently summarized by the maxim "volenti
non fit injuria". In many cases, those engaging in risky activities will be asked to sign
a waiver releasing another party from liability. For example, spectators to certain sports
are assumed to accept a risk of injury, such as a hockey puck or baseball striking a member
of the audience. Warnings by the defendant may also provide a defense depending upon
the jurisdiction and circumstances. This issue arises, for example, in the duty of care that
landowners have for guests or trespasses, known as occupiers' liability.
Comparative or contributory negligence
If the victim has contributed to causing their own harm through negligent or irresponsible
actions, the damages may be reduced or eliminated entirely. The English case Butterfield v.
Forrester established this defense. In England, this "contributory negligence" became a partial
defense, but in the United States, any fault by the victim completely eliminated any damages.
This meant that if the plaintiff was 1% at fault, the victim would lose the entire lawsuit.
This was viewed as unnecessarily harsh and therefore amended to a comparative negligence
system in many states; as of 2007 contributory negligence exists in only a few states such
as North Carolina and Maryland. In comparative negligence, the victim's damages
are reduced according to the degree of fault. Comparative negligence has been criticized
as allowing a plaintiff who is recklessly 95% negligent to recover 5% of the damages
from the defendant. Economists have further criticized comparative negligence as not encouraging
precaution under the calculus of negligence. In response, many states now have a 50% rule
where the plaintiff recovers nothing if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible.
Illegality If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing
at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's
liability. The legal maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, Latin for "no right of action
arises from a despicable cause". Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property
owner and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to escape apprehension,
there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have
been sustained but for the property owner's intervention.
Other defenses and immunities
Historically, immunity has been granted to governments under sovereign immunity and to
charitable organizations under charitable immunity, although these have eroded in the
United States. Various laws limit liability when giving aid
to a person in need; liability can arise from a failure to help due to the duty to rescue.
Remedies The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation
in 'damages' or money. In a limited range of cases, tort law will tolerate self-help,
such as reasonable force to expel a trespasser. This is a defense against the tort of battery.
Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is merely threatened, the
courts will sometimes grant an injunction, such as in the English case Miller v Jackson.
This means a command, for something other than money by the court, such as restraining
the continuance or threat of harm. Usually injunctions will not impose positive obligations
on tortfeasors, but some Australian jurisdictions can make an order for specific performance
to ensure that the defendant carries out their legal obligations, especially in relation
to nuisance matters. Theory and reform
Scholars and lawyers have identified conflicting aims for the law of tort, to some extent reflected
in the different types of damages awarded by the courts: compensatory, aggravated, and
punitive. British scholar Glanville Williams notes four possible bases on which different
torts rested: appeasement, justice, deterrence and compensation.
From the late 1950s a group of legally-oriented economists and economically-oriented lawyers
known as law and economics scholars emphasized incentives and deterrence, and identified
the aim of tort as being the efficient distribution of risk. Ronald Coase, a principal proponent,
argued in The Problem of Social Cost that the aim of tort should be to reflect as closely
as possible liability where transaction costs should be minimized.
Since the mid-to-late 20th century, calls for reform of tort law have come from various
perspectives. Some calls for reform stress the difficulties encountered by potential
claimants. For example, because not all people who have accidents can find solvent defendants
from which to recover damages in the courts, P. S. Atiyah has called the situation a "damages
lottery". Consequently, in New Zealand, the government in the 1960s established a no-fault
system of state compensation for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of
Command Papers in the UK and much academic debate.
In the U.S., reform has typically limited the scope of tort law and damages available,
such as limiting joint and several liability, the collateral source rule, or capping noneconomic
damages for emotional distress or punitive damages. These reform statutes are sometimes
rejected as unconstitutional under the state constitutions by state supreme courts, with
the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution possibly also relevant. Theoretical
and policy considerations are central to fixing liability for pure economic loss and of public
bodies. Relationship to contract law
Tort is sometimes viewed as the causes of action which are not defined in other areas
such as contract or fiduciary law. However, tort and contract law are similar in that
both involve a breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have blurred and it may not
be clear whether an action "sounds in tort or contract"; if both apply and different
standards apply for each, courts will determine which is the "gravamen". Circumstances such
as those involving professional negligence may involve both torts and contracts. The
choice may affect time limits or damages, particularly given that damages are typically
relatively limited in contract cases while in tort cases noneconomic damages such as
pain and suffering may be awarded. Punitive damages are relatively uncommon in contractual
cases versus tort cases. However, compensation for defective but not unsafe products is typically
available only through contractual actions through the law of warranty.
In the United Kingdom, plaintiffs in professional negligence cases have some degree of choice
in which law while in commercial transactions contract law applies; in unusual cases, intangible
losses have been awarded in contract law cases. In the United States, the pure economic loss
rule has been used to "mark the boundary" between tort and contract law cases and courts
may consider a case which involves both causes to fall under only one area of law. This "economic
loss rule" was adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States East River Steamship
Corp V Transamerica Delaval Inc. and has expanded across the country in a non-uniform manner,
leading to confusion. Among other examples, the tort of insurance bad faith arises out
of a contractual relationship, and "collateral torts" such as wrongful dismissal involving
possible overlap with labour law contracts. Overlap with criminal law
There is some overlap between criminal law and tort. For example, in English law an assault
is both a crime and a tort. A tort allows a person, usually the victim, to obtain a
remedy that serves their own purposes. Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not
to obtain remedies to assist a person – although often criminal courts do have power
to grant such remedies – but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf. This
explains why incarceration is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually
for torts. In early common law, the distinction between crime and tort was not distinct.
The more severe penalties available in criminal law also means that it requires a higher burden
of proof to be discharged than the related tort. For example, in the O. J. Simpson murder
trial, the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that O. J. Simpson had committed the
crime of murder; but in a later civil trial, the jury in that case felt that there was
sufficient evidence to meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence required to
prove the tort of wrongful death. Many jurisdictions, especially the US, retain
punitive elements in tort damages, for example in anti-trust and consumer-related torts,
making tort blur the line with criminal acts. Also there are situations where, particularly
if the defendant ignores the orders of the court, a plaintiff can obtain a punitive remedy
against the defendant, including imprisonment. Some torts may have a public element –
for example, public nuisance – and sometimes actions in tort will be brought by a public
body. Also, while criminal law is primarily punitive, many jurisdictions have developed
forms of monetary compensation or restitution which criminal courts can directly order the
defendant to pay to the victim. See also
Outline of tort law Index of tort articles
Notes
Bibliography Deakin, Johnston and Markesinis. Markesinis
& Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928246-3.
Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant, Tort Law - Texts, Cases 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press, ISBN
0-19-926055-9 van Gerven, W. et al.. Cases, Materials and
Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. ISBN 1-84113-139-3.
External links Irish Citizens Information Board