Strict liability, in contrast with both, simply requires that the defendant's act or omission caused the plaintiff's injury. More subtly, the three areas of tort law differ in how they legally redress harm. Negligence is a loose standard for determining liability, Intentional torts are more rule-like and categorical. Put another way, intentional torts are rule-like, negligence represents a balancing test, and strict liability has elements of rules and balancing test. B. The Spivey case illustrates the importance of recognizing and arguing the distinction between negligence and intentional torts.
Jurisdictions differ on how each type of tort is treated for procedural purposes.
There may be important differences for insurance and respondeat superior. There are seven categories of intentional torts. What they have in common is the requirement that the plaintiff show that the defendant had the intent to cause harm. They differ in the type of harm redressed. We will discuss each and their application over the next two weeks.