【正文】 s mitted with deliberate intent (as when someone circulated a letter calling you a thief) or that it was the result of negligence (as in the case of the driver in the parking lot who carelessly hit your car when he had a duty to drive carefully). In most cases you must prove that the act inflicted actual damage or injuries. A malicious act that does you no harm, such as a threat to punch you in the nose or a shove in a crowded subway, is not a sufficient cause for legal action. Nor are you likely to recover damages from a neighbor when the healthylooking elm tree in his yard crashes down on your roof in a windstorm. The crash was not something he intended, nor was it the result of his negligence. A person who is proved to have mitted a tort have resulted from his act. A motorist who sideswipes your car, causing you to serve and hit a pedestrian, is responsible for damages both to you (for the injure to your car) and to the pedestrian (for his dental expenses in replacing the false teeth knocked ort when your car hit him). A mugger who attacks you on the street, leading you, in defending yourself, to raise your umbrella so quickly that you hit a passerby, is responsible both to you (for the shock to your nervous system) and to the passerby (for the cost of stitching up his scalp). He is also guilty of a crime and can be arrested and prosecuted. Generally speaking, any person, young or old, mentally petent or not, is responsible for his torts: for the consequences of his actions to others injured by those actions. The same person who in the eyes of the law is not mentally petent to mit a crime may noheless be held liable for mitting a tort. Almost all employers are liable for the torts of their employees if the employee mitted the harmful act during the course of his employment. The law usually holds an employer liable for what happens when his employee is carrying ort his instructions and working on his behalf. But not all employers—— especially not governmental ones. The doctrine of sovereign immunity—— that the state cannot be sued except by its own consent—— severely limits your right to sue governments and governmental bodes for the torts of their employees. Some people may not be held liable in tort actions. Among them are bus bands and wives. Who are not considered responsible for each other’s torts, and parents, who are not usually liable for the torts of their children. Many people are not aware of this. But if your tenyearold son carelessly knocks a baseball through a store window you are not legally responsible for the cost of replacing it—— despite the owner’s angry protests. The situation changes, however, if a parent knows that his child has developed what lawyers call a vicious propensity to mit acts that injure other people or their property. If the neighborhood bully has a habit of going around hitting smaller children and stoning dogs and cats, and if his parents know about his habitual bad behavior, the court might find that it was their duty to restrain and control him. If they allow him to continue in his destructive ways, they might be found liable for damage he caused. In addition, some states have passed laws that do make the parents responsible for willful damage caused by their minor child. Police officers, sheriffs and other peace officers acting in the course of their official duties are not liable in tort unless they use excessive force or exceed their authority in discharging their duties. The same general rule applies to many kinds of public officials working under actual or even implied orders from their superiors. You can’t sue the over eager tax collector who charges you an excessive real estate levy. You may pay the money under protest and sue the senior official in charge, or the