 This is Wayne LeCiao and welcome to torts introduction and intentional torts module 4a part a In this part, we will begin the introduction to torts by looking at what is a tort the three different types of torts legal analysis that you need to apply to torts and also the the tort of battery What is a tort? It's it's certainly not a cake a Legal tort is made up of three different elements There has to be some kind of wrongful act committed by a person and that act causes an injury or loss to another person Which leads to civil liability? So what that means a civil liability is that the injured person or the person who suffered the loss may sue the person who committed the wrongful act The person who committed the wrongful act the the technical legal term is a tort freezer Now there is a social purpose for For a tort which allows someone to make another person liable for their for their loss It tort law is meant to discourage people from committing private wrongs by requiring them to compensate and restore The wrong party so it gives people an incentive to not do these wrongful acts and And to be to be careful in what they do Here's a comic strip illustrating the three types of torts There's intentional torts where there's some kind of intentional act the the comic here Illustrates the tort of trespass, which is actually something that we won't cover But what it was showing is that the the intentional act of kicking the ball the ball is trespassing on someone else's Property the second the second drawing here is is negligence when someone Accidentally or is careless and and that careless carelessness causes an injury to another person and the third one is strict liability which Could involve and being attacked by an animal and suing the the owner of that animal for for the injury So again, there are three types of torts The first type is intentional torts which is covered in module 4a of this course the intentional tort involves an Act that was done intentionally and that act causes harm to someone else Negligence torts, which is covered in module 4b involves an act that was done carelessly or accidentally and that that careless or accidental Act causes harm to someone else The third type is strict liability or strict liability tort So with a strict liability tort someone has been harmed, but it's not because something was done intentionally or carelessly So this type of tort is only in particular special situations such as the transportation of dangerous products Or the keeping of dangerous animals We don't cover this type of tort in this course, but if you are interested, please have a look in the textbook There is a case brief case brief 3.1 on page 67 with a case called Cowles versus Balak so it involves a couple who were injured by by animals at the African lion safari and interestingly enough One of the one of one of the people injured was a Sheridan student at that time To determine whether or not a tort has been committed We first need to see what the legal requirements are for the specific kind of tort Every type of tort has a specific list of requirements that have to be met in Order to conclude that a tort or that tort has been committed These are legal requirements have been set by by courts through case law If the requirements of a tort are met we then need to look at The applicable defenses that that may allow the defendant to either avoid liability altogether or to reduce the defendants liability So some torts have specific defenses that that would do that so for the tort of defamation There are the defenses of justification absolute privilege qualified privilege and fair comments So if any of those defenses apply the defendant the person being sued would not be liable for defamation if if we conclude that all the requirements of the tort are met and None of the defenses are available Then a tort has been committed The next thing the court has to determine is you know What is the appropriate remedy to give to the plaintiff to to address the wrong that has been suffered by the plaintiff? Let's go back to the case of Betel and Yim, which we looked at way back in in module one So we had used that case to illustrate You know how how we do a proper three-step three-step legal legal analysis So that so if you remember that case involved a variety store owner named Mr. Mr. Yim and one day a Bunch of boys including one named Betel entered his entered his store You know played on played with stuff in his store and then and then Mr. Yim was irritated with them and asked them to leave The boys went outside and start throwing lit matches into the store So Mr. Yim went after the boys and grabbed one of them Which was which was Betel who was the plaintiff in this case and start shaking Betel and in the process of shaking him He hits Betel's nose and Betel's nose is is broken So that's the the the injury that's being sued for in this case By Betel is is the broken nose So let's let's look at this case in terms of the tort of battery Back in module one. We had looked at the the requirements of the tort of battery But let's look at it in more in more detail now So first for for all the torts or most of the torts that will will cover in this in this module We will we will Summarize them in three different parts the first part being the requirements for that tort the second is The available defenses for that tort and the third is the the appropriate remedy if that the tort has been committed So for the tort of battery The requirements are that there has to be an intentional act Causing offensive bodily contact and also the defendant has suffered some kind of harm from that from that contact and and what is meant by the word offensive is that the the the bodily contact was was want unwanted so even if the contact is harmless or even beneficial like in the case of a medical treatment treatment where consent has not been provided If the contact is Unwanted it is still considered to be to be battery So if those requirements are met The defendant could still be held not liable if one of these defenses is applicable the first defense is the defense of consent You know did you know did the did the the plaintiff in some way consent to to the battery so you know the most most obvious situation where You know being where you have consented to being hit is where you voluntarily enter into a fight With with another person so if that other person you know hits you in that fight There is available the the defense of consent you've consented to being hit by entering into that into that fight So you the defendant could not be held liable The second defense is called is called self-defense. So if someone attacks you You can use reasonable force in response to an immediate risk. So if someone is right in front of you, they're about to attack you and And and and you and you want to protect yourself You have the right to use reasonable force and if you hit them in self-defense You're not liable The third the third defense is called legal authority. So specific people under You know on under legislation or even common law It may have legal authority to use to use force to make bodily contact with another person The most obvious example is is police So if if they if they if they feel that someone has committed a crime, they have a right To use reasonable force to to make to make an arrest the third or the rather the fourth defense is called necessity So that's where the the bodily contact is justified because of some Emergency some kind of critical situation where the contact Is needed because of that emergency situation The the last defense is called provocation. That's only a partial defense. It doesn't remove all Or eliminate all of the defendants liability. So that's So that's where the the person has been provoked Where the words or actions would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control? So if if the plaintiff had had said or done something to provoke the defendant to and Which caused the defendant to lose self-control and hit the plaintiff then You know then there is the partial defense of Provocation and the defendant will not be held fully liable for the for the injuries Now if the requirements are met and no defenses are available So that means the defendant is liable and the court has to decide on an appropriate remedy in in the case of the tort of battery the The the the usual appropriate Remedy is compensatory damages to cover the economic losses that the defendant has suffered Due to the injury later on in this module We will cover in greater detail the different types of remedies available in in tort cases Let's now do the legal analysis for the Betel and Yim case the first step of identifying the legal issue is Is stating the the legal question did Yim commit the tort of battery against Betel? The second step of stating the applicable law So the first thing we need to set out is the legal test for the tort of Battery which which is your battery is committed if the defendant did an intentional act which caused offensive bodily contact on the plaintiff and The plaintiff has been harmed by that contact The the second part of the applicable law is setting out the applicable defenses So I won't you know read read them out, but that's basically putting out in full sentence form what the defenses are and Last part of the applicable law is stating what what the appropriate remedies Are so so what I put here is that if the defendant did commit battery without any applicable defense The defendant must pay compensatory damages for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff so The third step of the legal analysis for Betel Yim and Yim is applying the law to the facts and coming to a conclusion or opinion So we first apply the legal test for the tort of battery to the facts So Yim did intentionally make bodily contact with Betel by grabbing and shaking him and this contact caused the breaking of Betel's nose So there was harm caused by the bodily contact So therefore the legal test for battery is is satisfied The next thing we do is look see if any of the defenses are applicable to the facts So the first defense is the defense of consent. So Betel did not consent in any way to being grabbed grabbed by Yim And since Betel did not attack Yim Yim was not acting in self-defense. So the self-defense defense is not available Yim does not have any special legal authority to grab Betel and also there was not any emergency which necessitated The grabbing of Betel. So none of those defenses apply. However We could say that Betel provoked Yim by by throwing lit matches into the store So therefore a partial defense is available to Yim So this partial defense would would act to reduce Mr. Yim's liability For the tort of battery. It won't eliminate his liability. It will only reduce it The third step of applying the law to the facts is to is to determine the appropriate remedy So Yim will be liable to pay Betel compensatory damages for any economic losses He has suffered due to his broken nose so such so these economic losses could be things like medical expenses or Or a loss of income from missing work due to the injury So if Betel had a job that he couldn't do because of his broken nose He could claim for that for that loss of income in the form of compensatory damages