First, duty is a tort for negligence. It is the performing of an act without reasonable care that another person would do it. Individuals are allowed to act as they please, provided that their actions or inaction do no damage to other people.
When the reasonable-person standard is applied, the second element of negligence is a breaching of the duty to care. With the reasonable person criteria, the law determines whether the behavior of the defendant is comparable to the conduct expected in similar situations (Miller 2016, Miller). It is considered that the defendant has complied with their duty of care if so (Plunkett 2018, 2018). A defendant is in breach of the duty of care if their actions are not comparable to those of a reasonable individual.
Causation is the link between the defendant’s negligent conduct and the defendant. A lawsuit must prove that the plaintiff directly or proximally caused negligent conduct. (Negligence n.d. If the case is one of proximate causality, the defendant must establish that there was a direct relationship between the conduct of the plaintiff and the damages, so the tortious actions of the defendant posed a high risk of injury to the plaintiff.
Damage is a component in negligence. It refers to any harm suffered by the plaintiff due to the tortious conduct of the defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff must prove that they were harmed by the claimant’s breach of duty.
Torts under the Circumstances
Walter strikes Walter the child. He is responsible for carelessness for violating his duty of care to road users. Walter is also subject to the mental stress caused by the assault on another person. This causes the tort of negligence.
Walter performed his road duties and was reasonable in the death of an elderly lady.