Most of the cases filed in the courts everyday are cases involving money claims through negligent act of another. Under a common law legal system such as the US, this is called torts. For civil law legal systems like Spain, this is called quasi-delict.

If you suffered damages because of another person, without malice but with negligence, you may claim damages against that person. This is called torts. In torts, the damage and the negligence of another are the indispensable elements.

Negligence, in law, is defined as the failure of a person to exercise the necessary diligence expected of a reasonable man to employ in the performance of a certain task or duty. If one causes an injury to another, it is presumed that that individual failed to exercise the diligence required by the nature of the act.

For a person to be held liable for damages, it is necessary to establish the link between the damage done and the negligent act that caused the damage. This link is called the proximate cause. The damage done should be the direct and natural cause of the negligent act of the defendant. If so, the defendant should be held liable for such damage.

It would be easier if the damages were a result of just single proximate cause. Complications arise when there are multiple proximate causes for the damage resulted. When this happens, the defendant may still be held liable for damages as long as his negligent act was part of the multiple proximate causes. The plaintiff may also file claims against other individuals whose negligent acts form part of the multiple proximate causes, even if the negligent acts of various defendants are distinct and separate from one another.

Through preponderance of evidence, the following elements should be proven to hold a person liable for torts. First is that the defendant should have the obligation or responsibility towards the general public. Second is that the defendant failed to perform such an obligation. Third is that an injury has been done because of such failure to comply with the obligation. And last, the resulting injury is not unforeseeable.

There is gross negligence when the failure to observe proper diligence is so coarse, reckless and displays a real and considerable lack of concern to the possible danger and damage that may arise from that act. A classic is example is when you are driving at a 180-200 miles per hour as when you know that the limit for that road is only 100.

Negligence is looked at the capacity of the individual to exercise the diligence required. For instance, minors are treated differently when it comes to negligence, considering their age and mental capacity.

If, for example, the plaintiff has a fault in the injuries he sustained, his liability is deducted from that to be given by the defendant. In some jurisdiction this is called contributory negligence, in others it is known as comparative negligence. The law recognizes the fact that the plaintiff's injuries may have been partly caused by him. In such a case, it is just proper to make him partly liable to himself by reducing the liability of the defendant.