The Personal Injury Lawyer - Determining Negligence Or Intent
For the personal injury lawyer, Maryland and other state laws recognize two broad categories: injuries due to negligence and injuries that were caused deliberately.
The latter falls under the category of intentional torts.
Negligence vs.
Intent For example, let us suppose you are driving down the street and your car is struck broadside by a vehicle driven by someone who was chatting on a cell phone and thus failed to see a stop sign.
Currently, there is no law in Maryland that prohibits the use of a cell phone by an adult while driving; however, this driver could be found liable for your injuries due to his/her negligence.
On the other hand, if someone decides they don't like one of your bumper stickers or is frustrated because you are not going fast enough and runs you off the road, causing you to plow into a tree - this would clearly be an example of an intentional tort.
(In addition, this driver could be charged in criminal court with vehicular assault - but this is a separate issue.
) The Burden of Proof Much of the time, the difference between negligence and intent is not clear.
The argument here is similar to the one used against the doctrine of "hate crimes;" intent is highly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law.
As the injured party or plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the defendant acted with malicious intent.
If intent cannot be proven with a preponderance of evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff loses his/her case; the defendant can still be found liable on grounds of negligence.
However, courts tend to grant higher awards in cases in which the act is found to be intentional and will even grant punitive damages in such cases.
Transferred Intent Here is another scenario: you are driving along a multi-lane highway when you notice two vehicles - A and B - ahead of you; they appear to be involved in a "road rage" incident.
Suddenly, the driver of vehicle A veers to one side in a deliberate fashion, forcing vehicle B toward the shoulder of the road.
This causes vehicle B to flip sideways, and you slam into it as a result.
Although the driver of vehicle A did not intend for you and your vehicle to come into harm, his intentions toward the driver of vehicle B are patently clear - and you wound up getting hurt in the process.
Under the legal doctrine of transferred intent, you could sue the first driver for an intentional tort, even if you were not the target of his actions.
This doctrine also has a parallel in criminal law.
If Fred shoots Barney and the bullet goes through the latter and the bedroom wall killing Betty as well, Fred could face two counts of murder, even though he was actually having an affair with her and did not intend for her to come into harm.
The latter falls under the category of intentional torts.
Negligence vs.
Intent For example, let us suppose you are driving down the street and your car is struck broadside by a vehicle driven by someone who was chatting on a cell phone and thus failed to see a stop sign.
Currently, there is no law in Maryland that prohibits the use of a cell phone by an adult while driving; however, this driver could be found liable for your injuries due to his/her negligence.
On the other hand, if someone decides they don't like one of your bumper stickers or is frustrated because you are not going fast enough and runs you off the road, causing you to plow into a tree - this would clearly be an example of an intentional tort.
(In addition, this driver could be charged in criminal court with vehicular assault - but this is a separate issue.
) The Burden of Proof Much of the time, the difference between negligence and intent is not clear.
The argument here is similar to the one used against the doctrine of "hate crimes;" intent is highly subjective and very difficult to prove in a court of law.
As the injured party or plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the defendant acted with malicious intent.
If intent cannot be proven with a preponderance of evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff loses his/her case; the defendant can still be found liable on grounds of negligence.
However, courts tend to grant higher awards in cases in which the act is found to be intentional and will even grant punitive damages in such cases.
Transferred Intent Here is another scenario: you are driving along a multi-lane highway when you notice two vehicles - A and B - ahead of you; they appear to be involved in a "road rage" incident.
Suddenly, the driver of vehicle A veers to one side in a deliberate fashion, forcing vehicle B toward the shoulder of the road.
This causes vehicle B to flip sideways, and you slam into it as a result.
Although the driver of vehicle A did not intend for you and your vehicle to come into harm, his intentions toward the driver of vehicle B are patently clear - and you wound up getting hurt in the process.
Under the legal doctrine of transferred intent, you could sue the first driver for an intentional tort, even if you were not the target of his actions.
This doctrine also has a parallel in criminal law.
If Fred shoots Barney and the bullet goes through the latter and the bedroom wall killing Betty as well, Fred could face two counts of murder, even though he was actually having an affair with her and did not intend for her to come into harm.
Source...