What is the definition of a Tort Law and Negligence?

Tort laws basically define what a civil wrongdoing is and what remedies may be available for them. Generally, there are two ways to "define" what a wrongdoing is. Either legislatures may act by law and say what is a wrong (negligence is one such wrong) or judges may create "rules" by which one can define these wrongs and the ways to remedy them.

Negligence is a tort. It has several elements:
A duty.
Breach of that duty.
A cause (in fact and "proximate")
And whatever damages are claimed to result from that negligence.

A plaintiff (one who sues) must present evidence that will show that each element is satisfied. A judge may dismiss or grant summary judgment (basically these motions mean the case never goes to the jury) if the evidence does not show a legal cause of action (and a judge may, at the end of a jury's deliberation and verdict, grant a decision opposite to the jury, or grant a new trial, if he finds the jury verdict is wrong). The jury must examine the facts and determine if a breach, cause, and damages are present. (The duty element is usually handled by a judge. The standard, general duty, which is defined in most states by law is that people owe each other a standard of reasonable care. But duties vary by state and by laws, by the nature of the responsibility, by the danger involved, etc.)

What is negligence? Negligence, in common terms, is carelessness, but legally speaking it is a "tort" that encompasses the above elements. One who is negligent generally is in breach of some duty of "reasonable care", has caused the damages, both proximately and in fact, and the damages warrant a remedy. In fact means here, normally, that "but for" the defendant's actions, the harm would not have occurred. However, courts require proximate cause also. Proximate cause is a generally a foreseen consequence of the defendant's actions. For example, say a car hits another, and that car another, and a fourth car will then run off a cliff and at the bottom of the cliff is a gas station that is hit and blows up. Is the first driver at fault? Well, there is certainly a cause in fact here: were it not for his bad driving, the fourth car probably would not have gone off the cliff and hit the gas station, causing the explosion. But is that first car proximately causative (also known as legally causative)? Probably not. A jury would likely see this last event as too unlikely, too remote, too unforeseen, and therefore in most cases that driver would not be held responsible. But this is left to a jury to decide, unless of course a law is passed that states this driver is responsible for ALL damages, however remote (which would mean he has committed "negligence per se", because the law states this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence