Has A Tort Of Negligence Has Any Bearing On The Legal Principle Of Strict Liability

What is a strict liability tort and in what instances is it used?

A strict liability tort refers to very serious events where the defendant is liable but not necessarily negligent.For instance, a man invites two neighbors to his home. The man has two adult tigers as pets that reside in a securely gated area in his backyard. The tigers can be extremely vicious without cause, and the homeowner let his neighbors know this prior to entering his property. One of the guests sneaks to the gated tiger area to take a photo. The man falls, and one of the tigers is startled and jumps over the gate. The tiger begins to hit and bite the man in a playful manner. When the owner hears the commotion, he immediately removes the tiger’s mouth from around the neighbor’s throat. The neighbor subsequently sustains serious wounds and is taken to the hospital for his injuries.The homeowner is liable as he had two wild animals on his property that are not supposed to be in a residential neighborhood. He knew there was the possibility of the tigers causing someone harm under the right circumstances. The homeowner was not negligent in using care with the tigers. If the neighbor had not tried to take a photo of the tigers without informing the owner, he would not have been injured. The homeowner is still liable because he should not have had the tigers as pets on his property to begin with.

Medical malpractice caused me to lose vision in my left eye permanently with recurrent cornea erosion and an inadequate settlement based on false data was reached. What recourse do I have?

You know, I wasn’t going to answer this, because I don’t know, and no one on Quora knows, what happened.And I have great sympathy for anyone who has lost vision in an eye for any reason. But motivated patients do quite well with one good eye. I see patients every day who have lost substantial vision in one or both eyes. The ones who have lost vision in only one eye, but have good vision in the other? They tend to function very well visually.And recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (if that is indeed what you have) is a pain, but usually quite treatable.But you were given advice by one answer to “shame” the doctor and hospital on social media, and I’m not really sure this is a good idea.First, how do you know it was malpractice? Do you have the information and knowledge to know that a doctor or doctors did not follow medically acceptable practices in treating you?Second, if it was clearly malpractice, I’m sure there were just, like, billions of malpractice lawyers who wanted to “help” you. And they allowed “false data” and an “inadequate settlement” to be reached? Maybe the data was accurate and the judge/jury reached a judgement they felt was reasonable for the damage done to your eye.Third, if you “defame” someone, either slander or libel, they can sue you I believe.I’m not a lawyer, but I think you should consult one before you start using social media to trash a doctor’s name and reputation, who may have just been trying to help you, even though things went wrong.Fourth, how does injuring someone else help you at this point? It apparently won’t get you a larger settlement. It takes time and effort on your part, reeks of revenge motivation, and ultimately, by hanging on to and feeding your anger, you are only hurting yourself more.I’m probably misquoting someone here but - “holding a grudge is like drinking poison, and hoping it kills the other person”.And Confucius: “Before embarking on a journey of revenge, dig two graves”.

U.S. Citizens, how would you feel about a law where if a crime is committed with a gun by someone other than the owner, the owner is charged as an accomplice to the crime if they had not reported the gun stolen prior?

U.S. Citizens, how would you feel about a law where if a crime is committed with a gun by someone other than the owner, the owner is charged as an accomplice to the crime if they had not reported the gun stolen prior?The anti-gun troll patrol is at work again. Their posing of these ridiculous questions is further evidence that have no intelligent argument for gun control. If they had intelligent arguments, they wouldn’t need to pose these kinds of ridiculous questions.Let’s look at analogous questions.If someone steals a car and gets into an accident before the owner has a chance to report the car stolen, should the car’s owner be held liable for the accident?If teenagers are in a house before the parent or parents arrive home from work and the friend of the teenager who lives there breaks into the bar and steals liquor, should the parent or parents be charged with providing alcohol to a minor? Along the same lines, if a teenager steals a few cigarettes from a pack in the house, should the parent be charged with providing cigarettes to a minor?If a homeowner notices that his ax is missing from his shed and doesn’t report the theft because he assumes that some kids were just pilfering, should he be liable if a serial killer uses the ax to kill someone? If the homeowner doesn’t notice that the ax is missing, should he be held liable?Imagine a hacker steals an old computer from a person’s garage and the person doesn’t report the theft because the computer was old and didn’t have much value. If the hacker uses that computer to commit a cyber crime, should the original owner be held liable for not reporting the computer theft?Thieves broke into my house this week, and I think they took a pry bar from my porch in hopes of using the pry bar to get deeper into my house. I discovered them, and they left when I shouted. At first, I didn’t notice that the pry bar was missing. Are you suggesting that I should be held liable for another break-in nearby where they stole a Jeep?Most rational people would consider all of these proposals to be ridiculous. Justice is not served by persecuting or prosecuting one victim of a crime for further crimes committed against other victims using the stolen property. That gun control advocates continue to propose these ridiculous, unjust, and stupid ideas shows the intellectual vacancy of the gun control movement.

What are tort laws?

"Tort" refers to a civil wrong, the remedy being granted in such instances being damages, ie payment ordered by court as compensation."Tort" derives from Latin "Tortum" meaning "to twist". Essentially it relates to conduct which isn't lawful, thus twisted or crooked. Tort is when a person does a wrongful act to another, and the other person claims damages from the one who did the wrongful act. Some torts may also be crimes; such as defamation, trespass, assault etc.; but all torts aren't crimes and neither are all crimes torts. For instance, you cannot claim damages in tort for an unlawful assembly by some persons, and a person can't be prosecuted criminally for causing nervous shock.In order to be successful in tort, legal damage must be proved to have been done. There has to be a right existing in the person claiming damages, and that right must have been violated by the person being claimed from. Whether or not actual harm is suffered by the person claiming is irrelevant, the mere fact that a violation has occurred is enough. This strange situation is known as Injuria sine damno or injury without damage. Example of this would be a case where an electoral officer wrongfully refused to allow you to vote. That would not damage you, but merely deprived you of a right...enough to make a claim in tort.However, existence of a right must be proved, otherwise it is Damnum sine injuria or damage without injury. For instance, if a person sets up a shop right opposite yours selling the same things you do, you might suffer loss, but no right has been violated.