Tort Elements as Checkable Data
Tort Elements as Checkable Data
An AI-system issue spotter with ordered element results, sources, unknowns, and handoff.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: United States common-law overview with selected Texas statutory applications; as of 2026-08-28; jurisdictions and causes of action vary; not legal advice. Synthetic facts are classroom inputs, not findings. This lesson renders structure, refuses unsupported interpretation, cites, abstains, and hands off.
See the essential structure first
Start with this deliberately incomplete structure, then use the pinned authorities, worked application, exceptions, and handoff below. This deliberately incomplete preview has 5 nodes; exceptions and legal consequences remain in the sourced prose below.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Begin with the governing doctrine
A tort issue spotter is a checklist and provenance system, not a liability engine. It selects a theory, orders prima facie elements, attaches authority and facts to each element, preserves unknown and conflicting states, and only then opens defenses, allocation, and remedies. For an AI system, technical roles and causal logs do not themselves determine legal duties. Product, professional, premises, undertaking, vicarious, statutory, and ordinary-negligence paths may overlap but must remain independently sourced.
Pin relational duty and risk scope
The pinpointed passage supplies a concrete duty-risk boundary for the issue spotter without universalizing New York's framing. Caption: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad; court: New York Court of Appeals; decision date: 1928-05-29. Verbatim opinion excerpt: “The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension” Source: 248 N.Y. 339; pinpoint 248 N.Y. at 344; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/ny/volume_248/0339_01/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin breach variables
The excerpt supplies burden, probability, and loss fields while the lesson preserves the snapshot's incomplete algebraic transcription. Caption: United States v. Carroll Towing Co.; court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; decision date: 1947-01-09. Verbatim opinion excerpt: “Since there are occasions when every vessel will break from her moorings, and since, if she does, she becomes a menace to those about her; the owner’s duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i. e., whether B PL.” Source: 159 F.2d 169; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f2d/volume_159/0169_01/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin later responsibility allocation
This provision supplies responsible-person categories after prima facie liability and causation are analyzed. Verbatim statutory text: “DETERMINATION OF PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY. (a) The trier of fact, as to each cause of action asserted, shall determine the percentage of responsibility, stated in whole numbers, for the following persons with respect to each person's causing or contributing to cause in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought, whether by negligent act or omission, by any defective or unreasonably dangerous product, by other conduct or activity that violates an applicable legal standard, or by any combination of these: (1) each claimant; (2) each defendant; (3) each settling person; and (4) each responsible third party who has been designated under Section 33.004. (b) This section does not allow a submission to the jury of a question regarding conduct by any person without sufficient evidence to support the submission.” Source: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.003; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_33/section_33_003/tex_cp_33_003_affe7b45c216/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_33_003_determination_of_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin damages categories
This provision supplies compensatory, economic, noneconomic, and exemplary-damages vocabulary for the final element and remedy handoff. Verbatim statutory text: “DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Claimant" means a party, including a plaintiff, counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages. In a cause of action in which a party seeks recovery of damages related to injury to another person, damage to the property of another person, death of another person, or other harm to another person, "claimant" includes both that other person and the party seeking recovery of damages. (2) "Clear and convincing" means the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. (3) "Defendant" means a party, including a counterdefendant, cross-defendant, or third-party defendant, from whom a claimant seeks relief. (4) "Economic damages" means compensatory damages intended to compensate a claimant for actual economic or pecuniary loss; the term does not include exemplary damages or noneconomic damages. (5) "Exemplary damages" means any damages awarded as a penalty or by way of punishment but not for compensatory purposes. Exemplary damages are neither economic nor noneconomic damages. 'Exemplary damages' includes punitive damages. (6) "Fraud" means fraud other than constructive fraud. (7) "Malice" means a specific intent by the defendant to cause substantial injury or harm to the claimant. (7-a) "Net worth" means the total assets of a person minus the total liabilities of the person on a date determined appropriate by the trial court. (8) "Compensatory damages" means economic and noneconomic damages. The term does not include exemplary damages. (9) "Future damages" means damages that are incurred after the date of the judgment. Future damages do not include exemplary damages. (10) "Future loss of earnings" means a pecuniary loss incurred after the date of the judgment, including: (A) loss of income, wages, or earning capacity; and (B) loss of inheritance. (11) "Gross negligence" means an act or omission: (A) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (B) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. (12) "Noneconomic damages" means damages awarded for the purpose of compensating a claimant for physical pain and suffering, mental or emotional pain or anguish, loss of consortium, disfigurement, physical impairment, loss of companionship and society, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind other than exemplary damages. (13) "Periodic payments" means the payment of money or its equivalent to the recipient of future damages at defined intervals.” Source: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.001; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_41/section_41_001/tex_cp_41_001_3a3970f746de/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_41_001_definitions_in_t_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin the synthetic fact pattern
A synthetic vision model directs a warehouse vehicle near workers and visitors. A false negative precedes delayed braking, collision, bodily harm, and equipment damage. Developer, deployer, operator, maintainer, supplier, logs, model version, tests, warnings, override, and preservation fields are populated.
Work the application
The rule trace runs in legal order: duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. It records actual cause and harm as supported classroom inputs while duty, breach, and scope remain unknown. Only afterward does the packet open product, vicarious, comparative-responsibility, assumption-of-risk, and remedy questions. Technical attribution, percentage allocation, and legal liability are never treated as synonyms.
Read the populated authority-and-fact record
The capstone renders five element results beside populated system-role, event, evidence, authority, breach-variable, causation, damage, defense, allocation, unresolved-field, and counsel-handoff rows. The rendered record contains 22 populated rows.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Read the complete record
The complete record keeps sources, stated facts, and questions for review separate. Authority records: Verbatim snapshot sources. 248 N.Y. 339: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. 159 F.2d 169: United States v. Carroll Towing Co.. Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.003: 33.003. DETERMINATION OF PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY. Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.001: 41.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:. Synthetic facts: Classroom facts only. System: Vision model directs a warehouse vehicle near workers and visitors. Event: False negative precedes braking delay, collision, bodily harm, and equipment damage. Control: Developer, deployer, operator, maintainer, and component supplier roles are recorded. Evidence: Logs, model version, warning design, testing, human override, and preservation status are pinned. Application trace: Elements, limits, and unresolved questions. Duty: Relationship, control, undertaking, product, premises, and statutory sources remain candidates. Breach: Reasonable care, risk variables, testing, warning, monitoring, custom, and feasible precautions. Causation: Counterfactual, alternative causes, scope of risk, intervening conduct, and proof uncertainty. Damages and defenses: Harm proof precedes comparative allocation, product defenses, and remedy limits. Handoff: Issue spotter preserves sources and unknowns; it does not assign liability.
Narrow summary
A checkable tort model makes element order, authority, facts, uncertainty, defenses, and handoff visible while refusing to predict liability from system telemetry.