The Differences Between Intentional Torts and Negligence in California Injury Law
When it comes to personal injury law, there are two main types of cases: intentional torts and negligence. Intentional torts involve deliberate harm, while negligence covers accidents that happen because of carelessness or oversight. Negligence cases can include things like slipping on a wet floor, car accidents caused by reckless driving, medical mistakes, and even wrongful death. In these cases, no one set out to cause harm, but someone’s lack of caution led to unfortunate consequences.
For a successful negligence claim, victims have to prove four key elements: duty of care, breach, causation, and damages. This means they must show that the defendant had a responsibility to act carefully, did not do so, and, as a result, caused harm. This is different than criminal cases, where the burden of proof is very high. For negligence claims, only a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is required, meaning it’s more likely than not that negligence occurred.
On the flip side, intentional torts—such as assault, battery, and defamation — are different because they involve purposeful harm. Here, victims must show that the defendant intended to cause damage. If successful, these types of claims could lead to both compensatory damages (to cover losses) and punitive damages, which are intended to penalize and discourage malicious acts.
What Is the Between Intentional Torts and Negligence?
Personal injury claims often arise from negligence, which is defined as behavior that does not meet the reasonable standards expected to ensure the safety of others. Unlike intentional torts, where harm is deliberate, negligence involves situations where the harm was unintended, but the individual is still held accountable due to their carelessness.
Negligence can manifest in various ways, including the following:
- Slips and falls on improperly maintained premises like slippery floors.
- Property damage from careless acts, such as accidents caused by reckless driving.
- Medical errors caused by a healthcare provider who fails to adhere to safety standards, although deliberate misconduct would constitute medical malpractice.
- Wrongful death claims typically result from negligent actions leading to a fatality.
To show negligence in a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove all four elements of negligence by showing they are more likely than not to be true:
- Duty of Care: The opposing party had a responsibility to act with standard care to prevent injury to the plaintiff.
- Breach: He or she failed to meet a lawful standard of care, either through an action or omission.
- Causation: The breach caused the victim’s injuries, and this can include actual cause (the direct cause of the injury) and proximate cause (the foreseeability of the injury type and extent).
- Damages: The victim suffered actual harm that can be compensated financially, not just potential or speculative damages.
The preponderance of the evidence implies that it is more likely than not that the allegations are true, which is a lower threshold than “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal cases.
In contrast, intentional torts can arise when someone deliberately causes harm to one or more parties, which may include the following:
- Assault: Threatening someone in a way that makes them fear imminent harm.
- Battery: Making harmful or offensive contact with someone, regardless of actual injury.
- Conversion: Taking possession of someone else’s property, akin to theft.
- Trespass: Unauthorized use of another’s property, which can involve land or personal belongings.
- False Imprisonment: Illegally holding someone against their will without legal right or justification.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Causing severe emotional distress through extreme or outrageous actions.
- Defamation: Damaging someone’s reputation through false written (libel) or spoken (slander) statements.
Intentional tort claims require a proven intent to harm. If intent is lacking, the case might instead be pursued under negligence principles.
What Damages Are Available in Intentional Torts vs Negligence?
Tort cases, such as those resulting from car accidents, are handled in civil courts, not criminal ones. Civil litigation focuses on securing financial compensation for victims as opposed to punishing the wrongdoer with criminal penalties. The specific tort claim filed also determines the kinds of damages a victim can seek.
In cases of intentional torts, the scope of potential damages is usually wider and more substantial than in negligence cases.
Common damages awarded include compensation for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. Intentional torts may also qualify for punitive damages, which serve to both penalize and discourage individuals from deliberately inflicting harm. Clear evidence of wrongful intent is required to recover punitive damages.
Conversely, in negligence cases, the claimant must demonstrate that they sustained actual injuries due to the defendant’s actions. Compensatory damages are intended to restore the claimant to the financial state they were in prior to the injury, essentially compensating for losses directly caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Why Choose Us for Your Personal Injury or Intentional Tort Claim?
At Eric Ratinoff Law Corp., we’re committed to guiding you through the complexities of your personal injury claim. Whether a case involves deliberate harm or carelessness that led to injury, we work diligently to recover the full scope of losses for our clients.
With over 30 years of experience, we provide personalized attention to each case, taking the weight of legal proceedings off your shoulders so you can focus on healing. Schedule your free consultation with our attorney today.
