Tort law governs civil wrongs and injuries between private parties. It defines legal injuries and determines liability. There are three main categories of torts: intentional torts against persons or property, negligence which covers a wide scope of human activity, and strict liability torts like nuisance. Tort law has evolved over time through statutes and case law. To win a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove duty of care, breach through failure to meet the standard of care, causation of damages, and foreseeability of damages. Defenses include no duty, no breach, no causation, and expired limitation period. Damages aim to restore the plaintiff to their original position and include general, special, and punitive damages.

2. Definition and Purpose of Tort Law
 A tort is a civil wrong other than a
breach of contract
 Tort law defines what constitutes a legal
injury and establishes the circumstances
under which one person may be held
responsible (i.e., liable) for another’s
injury

3. Categories of Torts
 Intentional torts – torts against the person (assault,
battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of
mental suffering, malicious prosecution, libel and
slander, and fraud) and property torts (trespass to
property, trespass to chattels and conversion)
 Negligence – covers the full scope of human
activity (e.g., product liability, “slip and fall”,
negligent misrepresentation, professional
negligence, etc.)
 Strict liability torts – nuisance

4. The Evolution of Tort Law
 Tort law has evolved over time based on
case law
 Additional torts have also been created by
statutes (e.g., occupiers liability,
competition law)
 Perceived failures of the common law to
address the needs of society through tort
law have led to additional statutory reforms
(e.g., workers’ compensation and
negligence legislation)

5. Elements of a Negligence Claim
 Duty of care owed by defendant to the plaintiff
according to the proximity (i.e., “neighbour”)
principle
 Breach of the duty of care by a failure to meet the
required standard of care, which is that of the
reasonable person in the circumstances
 Causal link between the defendant’s act or
omission and the plaintiff’s loss (i.e., damages)
 Damages were reasonably foreseeable at the time
of the breach

6. The Duty and Standard of Care Owed
by Professionals
Professionals have a duty to exercise the
skill, care and diligence that may
reasonably be expected of a person (i.e.,
a professional person in a particular
discipline) of ordinary competence,
measured by the professional standards
of the time

7. Negligence and Economic Harm
 Negligence can involve compensable
harm that is purely economic in nature
 This is often, though not exclusively, the
situation in cases involving negligent
misrepresentation

8. Defences to Negligence Claims
 No duty of care owed – the duty of care can only
arise in circumstances involving reasonably
foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to
establish a duty of care and where there are no
policy reasons that would negate the
establishment of the duty of care
 No breach of the standard of care
 No damages were caused by a breach of the
standard of care
 Damages were not reasonably foreseeable
 Limitation period has expired

9. Elements of Negligent
Misrepresentation
 Duty of care exists based on a special relationship (e.g.,
professional person and lay person who may reasonably rely
on the professional person’s professional expertise)
 Professional person makes representation that is untrue,
inaccurate or misleading
 The representation is made negligently
 Person receiving the representation relies on it in a
reasonable manner
 The reliance is detrimental and damages result

10. Defences to Claims for Negligent
Misrepresentation
 No duty of care is owed – (e.g., plaintiff is not a
member of the class of individuals that professional
knew would rely on the misrepresentation)
 Plaintiff’s reliance is not reasonable (e.g., the
representation was part of a discussion and not a
formal opinion or the professional limited liability
through a disclaimer clause)
 Professional’s negligent misrepresentation did not
cause damages
 Limitation period has expired

11. Objective of Damages for
Commission of Tort
To restore the plaintiff to the position he
or she would have been in if the tort had
not been committed

12. Damage Awards for
Commission of Tort
 General damages – compensation for non-monetary loss or
harm suffered as a result of the commission of the tort that
was foreseeable when the tort was committed (e.g., pain and
suffering, mental distress or damage to reputation)
 Special damages – compensation for the quantifiable
monetary losses suffered by the plaintiff that include direct
losses (such as amounts the plaintiff had to spend to try to
mitigate problems), consequential or economic losses (such
as lost profits in a business), and punitive damages, where
applicable
 Punitive damages – awarded to punish certain types of
behaviour (e.g., fraud or bad faith)
 Plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate their damages

13. Vicarious Liability
 In certain cases, one person can be
liable for the harm cause by another
 One example relevant to professional
liability is an employer’s liability for the
actions or omissions of its employees

14. THANK YOU!