Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками деліктне право на практиці, а саме:

1. Вступ. Що таке tort law - What is tort law? Purpose and scope.
2. Основні види деліктів - Negligence, intentional torts, strict liability.
3. Недбалість: ключові елементи - Negligence: Core Elements Duty of care – breach – causation – damage. Приклади судових справ.
4. Захист та обмеження відповідальності - Defences and limitations.
5. Засоби судового захисту. - Remedies Damages (compensatory, exemplary). Injunctions. Assessment of damages.
6. Підсумки та практичні висновки. Wrap-up & Practical Takeaways.

У рамках характеристики деліктного права акцентовано на наступному:

1. Introduction: What is Tort Law? Purpose and Scope

Tort law is a fundamental branch of civil law dealing with wrongful acts that cause harm to another person, governing civil wrongs that are not based on contracts or criminal offences. A tort itself is explicitly defined as a civil wrong that can be remedied by awarding damages.

It allows individuals who have suffered harm to seek compensation from the responsible party and protects people's rights by providing legal remedies for injuries, property damage, and financial loss.

The primary purpose of tort law is to compensate victims, allocate responsibility, and encourage people to act with reasonable care. By holding wrongdoers accountable and providing redress when individuals suffer harm to their person, property, or reputation, the system aims to strike a fair balance between protecting individuals from harm and allowing people to interact without fear of unlimited liability.

2. Main Types of Torts: Negligence, Intentional Torts, Strict Liability

Tort law classifies wrongful conduct into three main categories: negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability torts.

Negligent torts occur when a party fails to exercise proper care or fulfill a legal obligation, resulting in unintentional harm, such as causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules. Intentional torts encompass deliberate and purposeful wrongful acts, including unfair competition, defamation—which is divided into written libel and spoken slander—and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Strict liability torts impose legal liability regardless of fault, intent, or negligence; this concept commonly applies to product liability cases involving manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of defective and unsafe products.

3. Negligence: Core Elements and Case Examples

To successfully prove negligence, a plaintiff must establish four core elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages or injury.

The duty of care requires proving that the defendant had a legal obligation to the plaintiff, such as a business owing a duty to provide a safe product to a paying customer. A breach occurs when the defendant fails to conform to a reasonable standard of conduct. Causation requires showing a direct connection between the breach and the harm, encompassing both factual cause and proximate cause. Finally, the plaintiff must have sustained an injury, often physical, resulting in actual damages.

A notable landmark case illustrating negligence is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurant, where Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns from spilled coffee served at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonald's owed a duty of care to provide a safe product, breached that duty by serving coffee 30 to 40 degrees hotter than competitors despite knowing of over 700 prior burn incidents, directly caused Liebeck's severe injuries, and was ultimately found 80% responsible by the jury.

Additionally, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), courts may infer negligence even when an accident's exact cause is unknown, provided the defendant had exclusive control of the instrument, the event normally does not occur without negligence, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.

4. Defences and Limitations

Defendants in tort claims may raise several legal defences to limit or completely eliminate liability.

Under the assumption of risk defence, a person who knows, understands, and voluntarily accepts an obvious risk cannot recover damages if injured by that specific risk.

Regarding the plaintiff's own negligence, courts apply either contributory or comparative negligence. Traditional contributory negligence completely bars a plaintiff from recovering any compensation if they are even 1% at fault. In contrast, comparative negligence compares both parties' responsibility and reduces the plaintiff's damages according to their percentage of fault.

Furthermore, the "eggshell skull rule" (or thin skull rule) dictates that a defendant must take the victim as they find them; if negligence causes harm, the defendant remains fully liable for the full extent of the injuries, even if pre-existing conditions make the consequences unexpectedly severe.

5. Remedies: Damages and Injunctions

Remedies in tort law provide redress or monetary compensation for losses incurred. Damages generally fall into two major categories: compensatory damages, which are intended to pay the injured person for their loss or injury, and punitive (or exemplary) damages, which aim to punish the wrongdoer for severe misconduct and deter future bad behavior.

Courts assess damages based on evidence of physical injury, financial loss, or emotional distress, as illustrated in Boeken v. Philip Morris, where the court awarded compensatory damages alongside punitive damages for fraudulent concealment.

In addition to monetary compensation, equitable remedies include injunctions—discretionary court orders categorized as prohibitory, mandatory, interim, or permanent—designed to prevent irreparable harm and maintain the status quo.

6. Wrap-up & Practical Takeaways

Tort law serves as a vital framework within civil law for holding wrongdoers accountable and providing legal redress when harm is caused to a person, property, or reputation.

Key practical takeaways include the necessity of adhering to a standard of reasonable care in daily operations, recognizing that holding a duty of care entails liability for foreseeable harm. Furthermore, businesses and individuals must remain mindful of strict liability and vicarious liability rules, as employers can be held responsible for wrongful acts committed by employees within the scope of their duties. Ultimately, the system balances the protection of individual rights with the practical limits of legal responsibility.