Torts

The definition of libel in U. S. law revolves around defamation of character in the written form. For a full and complete discussion of this terminology see the below link:

1. Numerosity - enough plaintiffs to make class action an efficeint way to handle the claim.

2. Commonality - common issues of fact and law for each claimant

3. Adequacy of Class Rep - the person who is the class representatitve needs to have claims that are the same as the class members and that they are capable of serving as the representative.

4. Adequqcy of Counsel - that the law firm representing the class has sufficient skill and resources to represent the class.

A certified class action suit is one brought on behalf of a large group of people as plaintiffs who have suffered some similar harm from the same actions of the defendant or defendantsA certified class action suit is one brought on behalf of a large group of people as plaintiffs who have suffered some similar harm from the same actions of the defendant or defendants

The biggest difference is who brings the lawsuit, and the types of punishments.

In criminal law, prosecution is by the govt (state or federal). Punishments may be fines (paid to the govt) or jail.

In tort law, the plaintiff who brings the suit is the person who was directly injured -- and the punishment is usually payment of monetary damages to the person injured.

Another difference is that in most legal systems -- crimes are defined by statute, where as torts mostly exist based on past cases (precedent) that established them.This is most often in common law systems, like we have in the US and England.

Tortious interference means the wrongful interference with some right or economic opportunity belonging to a person which causes that person some monetary loss. It is usually used in connection with a business opportunity as where a person slanders or libels a person in order to hurt that person's opportunity to make some income in business. The tort of slander or libel will exist on its own to compensate the person for damage to his reputation; but there is the additional tort of wrongful interference with a business opportunity tp compensate the person for loss of income that would have been earned but for the wrongful action of the tortfeasor. Two separate types of damage; two separate torts.

free qustion i need

The question is unclear -but- some attorneys may want to be paid up-front. It all depends upon the circumstances. Some court fees (filing fees, notary fees, etc) must be paid up front just to get the court paperwork started, however these fees are not usually referred to as "court costs." Court costs, if applicable, are levied after the case has gone to conclusion, and are usually included as part of the verdict.

The difference is best illustrated by a couple of examples:

1. A minor attends a part at a friend's house while the parents are away, and particpates in causing damage to the house. There are laws that say in that case the parents of the minor can be liable for the damages. The minor is guilty of an intentional tort and is directly liable, but if the minor is unable to pay for the damages, the parents, who did not participate, are guilty by vicarious liability.

2. A delivery man in a company truck causes a traffic accident, injuring people and damaging property. It turns out the delivery man had a lousy driving record and his employer knew it but kept him on. The delivery man is guilty of negligence and is directly liable, and the employer is guilty vicariously for having knowingly kept a dangerous driver on as an employee.

In each case the persons who are liable "vicariously" did not participate in the underlying tortious conduct. In the former case the parents are guilty solely because the law wants to try to make parents responsible and more observant of their children's activities (and it would be unfair for the people whose home was damaged to be left without recourse, potentially if their insurance doesn't cover the damage and the minor has no money), but in case #2 the employer is guilty also of negligence, but a different kind.

Duty, breach, damages proximately caused by the breach.

In most circumstances, that is not the preferred order, but it can be done at times.

You simply name the corporation as a defendant by using its corporate name and place of business. Sometimes the actual corporate name is unknown because it is being operated under a business name. Most state have a registry of "business names" that match up to the actual corporate name. You should be able to get the true corporate name from state records. Sometimes court rules allow an unknown corporation to be named as a defendant using a fictitious name like "ABC, Corporation, a fictitious name to be made more specific during discovery", or something like that. The court rules will tell you how. The filed complaint is served according to the applicable court rules either by delivery or certified mailing to the company at its place of business or on its named registered agent. The name of the registered agent can be obtained from State or local records.

No, it isn't. It's hardly even a terroristic threat, really, although you could stretch it. An assault involves something a little more personal and painful.

If you are such an amazing standout talent that you don't need an agent, then you wouldn't have any trouble finding one. The fact that you think it's hard indicates that you're, realistically, never going to be on the Disney channel.

Sorry, but if it was easy to be a star, who would dig ditches?

If you are hurt on the job or develop an illness that is related to your work, you can file a claim for worker's compensation. Each state has different requirements on time limitations and payments.

Most acts which could produce criminal liability can also produce civil liability (making them torts).

This is because tort law and criminal law serve entirely different purposes: criminal law exists to punish wrongdoers for their acts, and focuses on a person's moral culpability.

Tort law, on the other hand, exists simply to compensate the victims of wrongdoing for their injuries.

So, suppose Al punches Bob in the face. Al has committed both a crime and a tort - in this case, they are both called "battery"

The state could bring criminal charges against Al for battery, and punish him with fines and jail time. However, the criminal court has no authority to compensate Bob for his injuries.

However, Bob could sue Al for the tort of battery. In such a case, if Bob won the lawsuit, Al would be required to compensate Bob for his injuries, by paying medical expenses, and possibly by paying for whatever pain, suffering, and emotional distress Al experienced.

As another example, suppose that somebody is murdered.

The murderer would by brought up on criminal charges by the state. Again, the purpose of this would be to punish him.

However, the family of the murder victim could also bring a lawsuit against the murderer for wrongful death, in which they could be compensated for the victim's lost wages, their pain and suffering, and the loss of the victim's companionship.

There is no such thing as mixing civil and criminal actions in the same court action. If criminal charges arise as a result of a civil case action they will be charged and prosecuted seperately from the civil trial.

Professor P.H. Winfield

The customer is known as a business invitee and is owed a very high degree of care that no injury due to the business owner's negligence befall the customer.

I believe you may be referring to: "DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA" which means a loss or damage without injury. Examples from: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d101.htm One man may cause a damage or loss to another, for which the latter has no remedy. He is then said to have received 'damnum absque injuria.' For example, if a man sets up a business in the neighborhood of another identical business, and by doing so, deprives the latter of its patronage.

Another instance might be where a man excavates a foundation with proper care and diligence, but injures an adjoining house due to the unsuitable materials used in constructing that house, the injury is 'damnum absque injuria.' Another: When a man slanders another by publishing the truth about that person then the slandered person is said to have suffered loss without injury.

It means the person who filed the motion did not appear at the hearing to prove their charges/case, and therefore the motion was dismissed either with or without prejudice.

A tort is a civil wrong (as opposed to a criminal offense), for which there is a legal remedy for the harm it caused.

Tort law is law created through judges (common law) and by legislatures (statutory law). The primary aim of tort law is to provide relief for the damages incurred and to deter others from committing the same harm.

Strict liability makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime,

Because if you don't there is a strong likliehood that you will lose your case.

A"tort" is a civil wrong. Therefore, the case would take place in civil court.

That is when you intentionally lie to person about the potency of an object that the person depends on, which put the person at a detriment because the depended on the objects performance. If you tell someone that a crane can lift 10000 pounds, and he buys the crane knowing that he has to carry 9000, but in fact the crane only lifts 1000 pounds, that person can sue you on the basis of the tort of deceit.