This test compares the actions of the tortfeasor with those of a reasonable person in a similar situation. The reasonable person test is objective.

Determining this test may require the use of expert witnesses to testify as to the reasonable professional's conduct under the circumstances.

In order for the tortfeasor to be held liable, the unreasonable conduct must be the proximate cause of the victim's injuries. Proximate cause (sometimes referred to as legal cause) is the connection between the unreasonable conduct and the resulting harm.

The injured party in a lawsuit for negligence must show that actual harm was suffered. In most cases, the harm suffered is a physical injury or in a form of property damage, and is, therefore, visible. Harm suffered due to fright or humiliation is difficult to demonstrate.

Several defenses can be used by the defendant in a negligence case. These defenses include contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of the risk.

The defense of contributory negligence involves the failure of the injured party to be careful enough to ensure personal safety. Contributory negligence completely prevents recovery by the injured party. The injured party's defense to a charge of contributory negligence is called last clear chance. Under this doctrine, a tortfeasor may be held liable if the injured party can show that the tortfeasor had the last chance to avoid injury.

The doctrine of comparative negligence requires courts to weigh the relative degree of wrongdoing in awarding damages, and to assign damages according to the degree of fault of each party.

Another defense to negligence is assumption of the risk, which involves the voluntary exposure of the victim to a known risk.

Under the doctrine of strict liability or absolute liability, the court will hold a tortfeasor liable for injuries to a victim even though the tortfeasor did not intend the harm and was not, in any way, negligent. Strict liability is generally applied when the harm results from an ultrahazardous or very dangerous activity.

Product liability is a legal theory that imposes liability on the manufacturer and seller of a product produced and sold in a defective condition (unreasonably dangerous to the user, to the consumer, or to property). Anyone who produces or sells a product in a defective condition is subject to liability for the physical or emotional injury to the ultimate consumer and for any physical harm to the user's property.

When a wrongdoer has injured another person by committing a tort, the victim can usually be compensated with monetary damages. Damages can include compensation for the repair or replacement of involved property, or for lost wages, medical bills, and any pain and suffering that the victim was forced to endure. If the tortfeasor's acts are notoriously willful and malicious, a court may impose punitive damages (exemplary damages), which are damages above and beyond those needed to compensate the injured party. Punitive damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor so that similar malicious actions are avoided by others.

If a tort involves a continuing problem the injured party may ask the court for an injunction. An injunction is a court order preventing someone from performing a particular act. If the company failed to satisfy an order, it would be in contempt of court. Contempt of court is a deliberate violation of the order of a judge that can result in a fine or in incarceration for the wrongdoer.

Exercise 1. Comprehension questions: 1. What are the kinds of violation of a duty?