which of the following torts has as a required element of proof, an intent to harm? course hero

by Dina Gislason Jr. 9 min read

What is a third element in the law of torts?

"A third element in the law of torts is the excuse for committing an apparent wrong. The law does not condemn every act that ultimately results in injury."; "Another excuse is negligence of the plaintiff."

What is a tort?

A breach of contract. D. A wrong or injury to another, other than a breach of contract. E. None of the above D. A wrong or injury to another, other than a breach of contract. Which of the following is true of the term "tort"? A. It is a French word meaning "wrong". B. It is a German word meaning "mistake". C. It is a Latin meaning "misfeasance". D.

Is the intent at issue in this case intent to harm?

The intent at issue is not intent to harm but, rather, is intent to engage in a specific act, which ultimately results in an injury, physical or economic, to another. Which of the following is a category into which intentional torts are divided?

What are intentional torts?

Intentional torts imply some fault on the part of the defendant imply some fault on the part of the defendant. "There is a clear moral basis for recovery through the legal system where the defendant has been careless (negligent) or has intentionally caused harm.

What is the intent at issue?

The intent at issue is intent to harm that results in physical injury to another. Economic injury is insufficient. E. The intent at issue is not intent to harm and is not intent to engage in a specific act.

Why is Robby's conduct not an assault?

D. Robby's conduct does not constitute an assault because there is no question of immediate bodily harm. E. Robby's conduct does not constitute an assault because contact has not yet happened. D. Robby's conduct does not constitute an assault because there is no question of immediate bodily harm.

Why is Holly not the proximate cause of the bank burning?

A. Holly is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Jeanie would have gasoline in the back of her car that would result in the fire. 101. Which of the following is true regarding the bank's claim that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa.

Is negligence a suffice?

A. The intent at issue is not intent to harm but, rather, is intent to engage in a specific act, which ultimately results in an injury, physical or economic, to another.