Learning Plan 2: Tort Principles

LA3100 Business Law FA13

A. List five differences between civil law (which includes tort law) and criminal law
identified by Dr. Ronald B. Standler in his essay, Differences between Civil and Criminal
Law in the USA, referenced in the Learning Activities.
1. In civil law, a private party files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law,
the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
2. In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either incarceration in jail, a fine paid
to the government or in exceptional cases, execution of the defendant: the death penalty. In
civil cases, the defendant is never incarcerated and never executed.
3. For tort claims, one can purchases insurance that will pay for damages and attorneys
fees. For criminal cases, it is not possible for a defendant to purchase insurance to pay for
their criminal acts.
4. In criminal law, the suspect or defendant has the right to remain silent during questioning
by police and prosecuting attorneys. In a criminal case, the defendant may choose to refuse
to be a witness, and the jury may infer nothing from the defendant's choice not to testify.
However, in civil law, the defendant must be available and cooperative for depositions and
testimony as a witness in the trial.
5. In civil law, the burden of proof is first on the plaintiff to prove. There may be situations
in which the burden shifts to the defendant. In criminal law, the burden of proof is always
on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to
be innocent and needs to prove nothing.
B. What two torts did Angelopoulos assert in her Complaint against Lazarus in
Angelopoulos v. Lazarus PA Inc., et al. , 2005 PA Super 304, 884 A.2d 255 (2005) provided
in this Learning Plan's instructional material?
False Imprisonment and Battery
C. List the three elements of negligence that a plaintiff must prove in Indiana, as stated
by the court in its analysis of the Hassan v. Begley,et al., 836 N.E.2d 303 (Ind.App. 2005)

medical malpractice case provided in this Learning Plan's instructional material.

The plaintiff must prove a duty to the plaintiff by the defendant, a breach of the duty by
allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care, and a compensable injury
that was proximately caused by defendants beach of duty.
D. Upon what tort theory did Garner sue Kovalak in Garner v. Kovalak, 817 N.E.2d 311
(Ind. App. 2004) provided in this Learning Plan's instructional material?
The theory of trespass quare clausum fregit. Under that theory: It is necessary for the
plaintiff to prove only that he was in possession of the land and that the defendant entered
there on without right, such proof entitling the plaintiff to nominal damages without proof
of injury, and upon additional proof of injury to products of the soil, the plaintiff is entitled
to compensatory damages.
E.
Explain why the trial court and the appellate court in the Garner v. Kovalak case,
cited in question 4 above, did not hold Kovalak liable for the damage caused to Garner's
trees by Kovalak's automobile.
In order to be liable for a trespass on land it is necessary that the actor intentionally be upon
any part of the land in question. Kovalak swerved to prevent a head-on collision. The
police report showed tire marks left by the identified vehicle. Kovalaks insurer also found
he was not responsible for the accident because he was run off the road by an identified
driver. Because the act of another cause Kovalak to leave the road, it was determined as
unintentional.