There are 3 types of personal injury claims. Each of them has a different set of required elements. The court will not try a case that lacks any of the necessary elements.

What element combination must be found in a case of intentional tort?

• It must be shown that the defendant knew that his or her actions would cause harm to the plaintiff.
• There must be evidence that the defendant’s actions did cause the anticipated harm.
• The extent of the resulting injury should be one that can be quantified.

What elements need to exist in a case where negligence has caused the personal injury?

• Proof that the defendant had a duty of care toward the plaintiff.
• Proof that the defendant breached that duty of care.
• Evidence that the defendant’s act injured the plaintiff, and that no intervening occurrence caused that same injury.
• Demonstrated presence of damages, or of some type of injury, following the accident’s occurrence.

Required elements in case where a personal injury has been caused by failure to follow rules that apply to a strict liability.

Strict liability only applies to certain situations. Those are situations in which either regulations or established practices have sought to limit the amount of danger that could result from pursuit of a dangerous activity.

The first required element consists of proof of the defendant’s willingness to follow the limitations on the pursuit of a given activity. For instance, on the Fourth of July, a homeowner could be charged with violating strict liability, if he shot-off fireworks in his backyard. Pursuit of that particular activity is limited to those that have access to fire-fighting equipment.

While some cases of strict liability arise during a particular time of year, others might get introduced in the court at any time of year. For example, someone that had chosen to keep dangerous animals might allow one of them to get loose. That would endanger others in the area.

Personal Injury Lawyer in Kingston is of the view that if such an animal were to injure a neighbor, then the person that owned the dangerous pets could be charged with violating strict liability laws. Those laws forbid the keeping of dangerous animals, unless each of them can be kept in a safe spot, such as one found at the zoo.

Still, the mere omission of the precautions specified in the law does not support a personal injury charge in a case of strict liability. If an animal got loose, but was soon captured, the animal’s owner would not need to face any neighbor or other individual in a civil court. However, the situation would be different if the same escaped “pet” managed to injure someone that lived in the area. Then strict liability laws could be applied.