Also known as: tortious liabilities · liability in tort · tort liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Legal responsibility imposed for harm caused by conduct that invades a protected interest of another and gives rise to a civil remedy.
Members of a nonprofit group stand on a public sidewalk outside a military funeral holding signs criticizing government policy on homosexuality. The deceased's family members suffer severe emotional distress and sue the group for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismisses the claim because the speech addressed matters of public concern in a peaceful manner on public land.
A husband managing a joint investment account executes unauthorized high-risk trades that deplete his wife's separate inheritance funds. The wife sues the husband for negligence. The court permits the suit to proceed because the marital relationship alone supplies no defense to tort liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A father directs his seventeen-year-old son to carry heavy boxes down a steep, unlit stairwell flagged for hazards at the father's office. The son falls and suffers permanent injuries. The son sues the father for negligence and the court allows the claim because the parent-child relationship creates no immunity from tort liability.
A shipowner purchases turbines that fail during operation and cause only economic losses with no physical damage to other property. The shipowner sues the manufacturer in tort. The court holds that the manufacturer faces no tortious liability because the claim seeks recovery solely for disappointed commercial expectations.
A city department maintains an official policy that results in employees violating a citizen's constitutional rights. The citizen sues the city under section 1983. The court imposes tortious liability on the municipality because the policy itself constitutes the moving force behind the violation.
A government official makes discretionary decisions that allegedly violate a plaintiff's constitutional rights. The plaintiff sues the official personally for damages. The court grants qualified immunity and shields the official from tortious liability because the conduct did not violate clearly established law.
No. A husband or wife is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. The rule removes the common-law bar but does not create liability where the underlying conduct would otherwise be privileged or non-tortious.
Supporting sources
No. A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. The abolition of immunity allows ordinary negligence principles to apply once the relationship-based defense is removed.
Supporting sources
The First Amendment bars such liability when the speech addresses matters of public concern, occurs peacefully on public land, and lacks any additional unprotected conduct. The protection applies even if the speech causes severe emotional distress.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must show that an official municipal policy or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Liability does not rest on respondeat superior alone.
…the intrastate sale of liquor); The Employers' Liability Cases , 207 U. S. 463, 495-496 (1908) (invalidating law governing tort liability for common carriers operating in interstate commerce because the effects on commerce were indirect); Adair v. United States , 208 U. S. 161 (1908) (holding that labor union membership fell…