'Out Of Gas'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
Tort refers pretty exclusively to civil causes of action between individuals, like libel, or assault, false imprisonment, that sort of thing. That distinguishes it from criminal or contractual causes of action.
Yes. A tort action is a civil action for damages based on injury caused to another. Like Consuela said, it's pretty much any civil action that dosen't arise out of a contractual or domestic relationship.
So I remain confused, would any injury to DX resulting from said tongue waggling be considered a tort or not?
So I remain confused, would any injury to DX resulting from said tongue waggling be considered a tort or not?
If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.
Ouch!!!
Maybe that was a bit more than you wanted to know.
ETA: And another slutty number score. I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.
So Nutty's a tongue waggling tort tart?
considers waggling tongue at Wolf.
decides it would be safest not to.
If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.
Impressive.
Impressive.
And you can use that on the bar. Provided it fits the fact pattern, and you're insane.
I'm not sure duty of care fits up there in a positive tort, but I always had trouble putting together the elements of a tort. I'm impressed you still can.