【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 e have limited the applicability of the rule.TortTort law is the name given to a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations.[1] A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive pensation from someone who is legally responsible, or liable, for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another39。s injury. Torts cover intentional acts and accidents.For instance, Alice throws a ball and accidentally hits Brenda in the eye. Brenda may sue Alice for losses occasioned by the accident (., costs of medical treatment, lost ine during time off work, pain and suffering, etc.). Whether or not Brenda wins her suit depends on if she can prove Alice engaged in tortious conduct. Here, Brenda would attempt to prove Alice had a duty and failed to exercise the standard of care which a reasonable person would render in throwing the ball.One of the main topics of the substance of tort law is determining the standard of care a legal phrase that means distinguishing between when conduct is or is not tortious. Put another way, the big issue is whether a person suffers the loss from his own injury, or whether it gets transferred to someone else.Going back to the example above, if Alice threw the ball at Brenda on purpose, Brenda could sue for the intentional tort of battery. If it was an accident, Brenda must prove negligence. To do this, Brenda must show that her injury was reasonably foreseeable, that Alice owed Brenda a duty of care not to hit her with the ball, and that Alice failed to meet the standard of care required.In much of the western world, the touchstone of tort liability is negligence. If the injured party cannot prove that the person believed to have caused the injury acted with negligence, at the very least, tort law will not pensate them. Tort law also recognizes intentional torts and strict liability, which apply to defendants who engage in certain actions.In tort law, injury is defined broadly. Injury does not just mean a physical injury, such as where Brenda was struck by a ball. Injuries in tort law reflect any invasion of any number of individual interests. This includes interests recognized in other areas of law, such as property rights. Actions for nuisance and trespass to land can arise from interfering with rights in real property. Conversion and trespass to chattels can protect interference with movable property. Interests in prospective economic advantages from contracts can also be injured and bee the subject of tort actions. A number of situations caused by parties in a contractual relationship may nevertheless be tort rather than contract claims, such as breach of fiduciary duty.Tort law may also be used to pensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation. Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict.[2] The law of torts can be categorised as part of the law of obligations, but unlike voluntarily assumed obligations (such as those of contract, or trust), the duties imposed by the law of torts apply to all those subject to the relevant jurisdiction. To behave in 39。tortious39。 manner is to harm another39。s body, property, or legal rights, or possibly, to breach a duty owed under statute. One who mits a tortious act is called a tortfeasor.[3] Torts is one of the American Bar Association mandatory first year law school courses.[4]Piercing the corporate veilThe corporate law concept of piercing (lifting) the corporate veil describes a legal decision where a shareholder or director of a corporation is held liable for the debts or liabilities of the corporation despite the general principle that shareholders are immune from suits in contract or tort that otherwise would hold only the corporation liable. This doctrine is also known as disregarding the corporate entity. The phrase relies on a metaphor of a veil that represents the veneer of formalities and dignities that protect a corporation, which can be disregarded at will when the situation warrants looking beyond the legal fiction of a corporate person to the reality of other persons or entities who would otherwise be protected by the corporate fiction.Piercing the corporate veil is not the only means by which a director or officer of a corporation can be held liable for the actions of the corporation. Liability can be established through conventional theories of contract, agency, or tort law. For example, in situations where a director or officer acting on behalf of a corporation personally mits a tort, he and the corporation are jointly liable and it is unnecessary to discuss the issue of piercing the corporate veil.The doctrine is often used in cases where liability is found, but the corporation is insolvent.Parent panyA parent pany is a pany that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors。 the second pany being deemed as a subsidiary of the parent pany. The definition of a parent pany differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the definition normally being defined by way of laws dealing with panies in that jurisdiction.SubsidiaryA subsidiary, in business matters, is an entity that is controlled by a bigger and more powerful entity. The controlled entity is called a