Tort Law vs. Contract Law

Tort Law vs. Contract Law: Understanding the Difference Between Civil Wrongs and Agreements

Tort law and contract law are both branches of civil law, and both can result in one party being required to pay money to another.

That superficial similarity can make them easy to confuse.

But they are based on fundamentally different sources of legal obligation.

A contract generally creates duties because the parties have entered into an agreement.

A tort generally creates duties because the law imposes obligations on people regardless of whether they have agreed to them.

This distinction can be expressed simply:

Contract law primarily governs promises that people voluntarily make to one another. Tort law primarily governs legally imposed duties concerning wrongful conduct and harm.

Consider two simple examples.

A agrees to sell B a car and promises to deliver it on Monday. A does not deliver the car.

The dispute is primarily contractual because A’s obligation arose from the parties’ agreement.

Now imagine that A is driving the car negligently and crashes into B’s vehicle.

The parties did not need to have a contract with each other for A to owe B a duty of reasonable care.

That duty arises from tort law.

The distinction becomes more complicated when the parties already have a contractual relationship. A doctor and patient, employer and employee, landlord and tenant, business partners, banks and customers, and manufacturers and consumers may have both contractual obligations and duties imposed by tort law.

Understanding when a dispute is contractual, tortious, or potentially both is therefore an essential part of civil-law analysis.

---

What Is Contract Law?

Contract law governs legally enforceable agreements between parties.

A contract generally arises when parties create legally enforceable obligations through an agreement.

Depending on the circumstances, contract formation may involve:

• offer;
• acceptance;
• consideration;
• capacity;
• mutual assent;
• legality;
• certainty; and
• required formalities.

Once a valid and enforceable contract exists, the parties are generally expected to perform the obligations they have undertaken.

For example:

A agrees to sell B 500 books for $5,000.

A promises to deliver the books on June 1.

B promises to pay the agreed price.

The obligations arise because the parties entered into the agreement.

If A fails to deliver the books, B may have a claim for breach of contract.

The legal question is primarily:

Did the defendant fail to perform an obligation created by the contract?

---

What Is Tort Law?

Tort law governs civil wrongs that give rise to legal responsibility independently of contractual promises.

Tort claims may involve:

• negligence;
• assault;
• battery;
• false imprisonment;
• trespass;
• conversion;
• defamation;
• nuisance;
• products liability;
• invasion of privacy; and
• other recognized civil wrongs.

The obligation in a tort case generally does not depend upon the parties having voluntarily agreed to the duty.

For example, drivers generally owe duties of reasonable care to other people using the road.

Those duties do not arise because every driver has signed a contract with every pedestrian or motorist.

They arise because tort law imposes them.

Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute describes torts as civil wrongs that can result in legal liability and distinguishes tort obligations from contractual obligations.

---

The Fundamental Difference: Where Does the Duty Come From?

This is probably the single most useful question to ask.

Contract

The duty generally comes from:

the parties’ agreement.

Tort

The duty generally comes from:

the law.

This does not mean that tort law never applies between people who have a contract.

It means that the source of the particular obligation matters.

Suppose a construction company agrees to build a house for a homeowner.

The construction contract may contain obligations concerning:

• the price;
• completion date;
• materials;
• design specifications;
• warranties;
• payment;
• and other matters.

Those obligations arise from the agreement.

But the construction company may also owe duties imposed independently by tort law—for example, duties concerning reasonable care or conduct that causes personal injury or property damage.

The existence of a contract therefore does not automatically eliminate tort law.

---

Tort Law vs. Contract Law at a Glance

Tort Law	Contract Law
Primarily concerns civil wrongs	Primarily concerns enforceable agreements
Duties generally imposed by law	Duties generally created by agreement
Parties need not have a prior agreement	Contract requires an agreement
Focuses heavily on wrongful conduct and legally protected interests	Focuses heavily on promises and contractual obligations
Negligence is a major example	Breach of contract is a major example
Physical injury, property damage, reputation, privacy, and other interests may be involved	Economic and performance interests are often central
Compensatory damages are common	Damages for contractual loss are common
Causation and scope of liability are often central	Contract terms, breach, causation, and contractual remedies are central
Defenses can include consent, privilege, comparative fault, and others	Defenses can include lack of formation, impossibility, illegality, mistake, and others

These are general distinctions rather than absolute rules. A particular dispute may involve both bodies of law.

---

A Simple Example: Failure to Deliver Goods

Suppose A agrees to sell B 1,000 books.

A receives payment but never delivers the books.

The central legal issue is likely to be breach of contract.

Why?

Because A’s obligation to deliver the books arose from the agreement between A and B.

The plaintiff may seek contractual remedies for the breach.

Now change the facts.

Suppose A delivers the books, but while negligently unloading them, A’s employee drops a heavy box onto B and seriously injures B.

Now a tort claim may arise.

B’s right to be free from unreasonable physical injury does not necessarily depend on the sales contract.

The same commercial relationship can therefore involve both contractual and tort duties.

---

Contractual Duties and Tort Duties

A useful way to understand the distinction is to separate the obligations themselves.

Contractual duty

“I promised to do this.”

Tort duty

“The law requires me to avoid this wrongful conduct.”

For example:

A promises to repair B’s roof by July 1.

That is a contractual obligation.

But while repairing the roof, A carelessly drops equipment onto a passerby and injures that person.

The passerby’s claim may be based on negligence even though the passerby never entered into a contract with A.

The contractual obligation and tort duty are separate.

---

Why the Distinction Matters

The difference between tort and contract is not merely academic.

It can affect:

• whether a claim exists;
• what elements must be proven;
• what defenses are available;
• what damages can be recovered;
• whether punitive damages may be available;
• applicable limitation periods;
• available remedies;
• the parties who can sue;
• and whether particular legal doctrines restrict one type of claim.

Correctly identifying the legal theory is therefore essential.

A lawyer does not simply ask:

“Did the defendant do something wrong?”

The lawyer asks:

“What legal obligation did the defendant violate, where did that obligation come from, and what cause of action does the law provide?”

---

The Importance of Agreement

One of the defining features of contract law is voluntary assumption of obligations.

When people enter into a contract, they generally choose to undertake particular legal responsibilities.

A person might agree to:

• purchase property;
• provide services;
• manufacture goods;
• lease an apartment;
• repay a loan;
• perform employment duties;
• maintain confidentiality; or
• refrain from particular conduct.

The resulting obligations are connected to the parties’ agreement.

Tort law operates differently.

A driver does not negotiate a contract with every person who might encounter the driver on the road.

A manufacturer does not necessarily enter into a contract with every person who might be injured by its product.

A person does not sign an agreement with every neighbor whose property the person must respect.

Tort law supplies duties in these relationships independently of contractual agreement.

---

Tort Law Protects Different Interests

Contract law primarily protects expectations created by agreements.

If someone promises to deliver goods and fails to do so, the law may protect the other party’s contractual expectation.

Tort law protects a broader collection of interests.

These can include:

• bodily integrity;
• property;
• possession;
• reputation;
• privacy;
• personal security;
• and other legally protected interests.

This difference helps explain why tort law can apply to strangers.

Two drivers who collide may have no contractual relationship whatsoever.

Nevertheless, each may owe the other duties under tort law.

---

The Difference Between a Breach of Contract and a Tort

A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform an obligation imposed by an enforceable agreement.

A tort occurs when a person engages in conduct that satisfies the elements of a recognized civil wrong.

These concepts can overlap.

Imagine that a physician agrees to provide medical treatment to a patient.

The relationship involves a contract, whether express or implied, concerning the provision of medical services.

But the physician may also owe professional duties imposed by tort law.

If the physician provides treatment negligently and injures the patient, the patient may potentially have a medical malpractice claim.

The precise causes of action and remedies depend on applicable state law and the facts.

The important point is that the existence of a contract does not necessarily mean that every dispute between the parties is purely contractual.

---

The Economic Loss Problem

The relationship between tort and contract becomes especially complicated when the plaintiff suffers purely economic loss.

Suppose a manufacturer delivers a machine that fails to operate according to the specifications in the sales agreement.

The buyer loses money because the machine does not perform as promised.

Is this a tort claim?

Not necessarily.

The dispute may primarily concern the manufacturer’s failure to perform the contractual promise.

Courts have developed various versions of the economic loss doctrine, which can restrict the recovery of purely economic losses through tort claims in certain circumstances.

The precise rule varies by jurisdiction and by the nature of the relationship and loss.

The doctrine reflects an important principle:

Contract law ordinarily provides the framework for enforcing negotiated economic expectations.

But the boundaries between contract and tort can become complicated when defective products, professional services, fraud, physical injury, or property damage are involved.

---

Contract Damages and Tort Damages

The two areas of law also differ in their approach to damages.

Contract Damages

Contract damages generally seek to place the injured party in the position the party would have occupied if the contract had been properly performed.

This is commonly associated with expectation damages.

Other contractual remedies may include:

• reliance damages;
• restitution;
• specific performance in appropriate cases;
• consequential damages where recoverable; and
• other remedies.

Contract damages are therefore closely connected to the parties’ agreed expectations.

Tort Damages

Tort damages generally seek to compensate the plaintiff for legally recognized harm caused by the tort.

Depending on the circumstances, damages may include:

• medical expenses;
• lost income;
• property damage;
• pain and suffering;
• emotional distress;
• lost earning capacity;
• and other compensable losses.

The objective is generally to address the harm caused by the wrongful conduct.

---

Expectation Damages vs. Tort Compensation

Consider two examples.

Contract

A promises to deliver B a machine worth $100,000.

A breaches the agreement.

B may seek damages reflecting the loss caused by the failure to receive the promised contractual performance, subject to the applicable rules concerning foreseeability, certainty, mitigation, and other limitations.

Tort

A negligently drives a vehicle and crashes into B.

B suffers $20,000 in medical expenses and other compensable losses.

B’s tort claim focuses on the harm caused by A’s wrongful conduct.

The two forms of damages arise from different legal relationships.

---

Consequential Damages and Foreseeability

Both contract and tort law can involve questions of foreseeability, but the doctrines operate in different contexts.

In tort law, foreseeability can be central to questions of:

• duty;
• breach;
• causation;
• proximate cause;
• and scope of liability.

In contract law, foreseeability can be important when determining whether consequential losses are recoverable following breach.

The fact that both subjects use the word “foreseeability” does not mean that the doctrines are identical.

The legal question depends on the cause of action.

---

Punitive Damages: An Important Difference

Punitive damages illustrate another important distinction.

Contract damages are generally compensatory rather than punitive.

A simple breach of contract ordinarily does not justify punitive damages merely because the breach was deliberate.

Tort law, however, may permit punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct meets the applicable standard for such an award.

For example, sufficiently malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, or reckless conduct may potentially support punitive damages under applicable state law.

The availability and constitutional limits of punitive damages vary by jurisdiction.

Thus:

A defendant who deliberately breaches a contract is not automatically subject to punitive damages merely because the breach was intentional.

The plaintiff must identify an independent legal basis for such an award.

---

When One Event Creates Both Contract and Tort Claims

Sometimes the most important answer is:

It is not either/or.

A single event can produce both contractual and tort liability.

Imagine that a company hires a contractor to install industrial equipment.

The contractor:

1. agrees to install the equipment correctly;
2. fails to follow the contractual specifications;
3. negligently performs the work; and
4. causes a machine to malfunction and injure an employee.

The resulting dispute could potentially involve:

• breach of contract;
• negligence;
• products liability;
• property damage;
• personal injury;
• or other claims.

The precise causes of action depend on the facts and applicable law.

The lawyer therefore needs to analyze each possible source of legal obligation separately.

---

Fraud and Misrepresentation: A Particularly Difficult Boundary

Fraud illustrates how tort and contract can intersect.

Suppose A sells B a property.

Before the transaction, A intentionally makes a false statement about a material fact in order to persuade B to enter the contract.

B relies on the false statement and suffers financial harm.

B may potentially have:

• a contract claim;
• a tort claim for fraudulent misrepresentation;
• or other statutory or common-law claims.

The contract governs the promises and obligations the parties assumed.

The tort may arise from wrongful conduct occurring in connection with the formation or performance of the agreement.

This is why it is dangerous to assume:

“If there is a contract, there can be no tort.”

That proposition is too broad.

---

The Source-of-Duty Test

One useful analytical approach is to ask:

Would the defendant have owed this duty even if there had been no contract?

If the answer is yes, the duty may be independent of the contract and potentially tort-based.

For example:

A driver owes a duty of reasonable care to other road users regardless of whether the driver has a contract with them.

That points toward tort law.

By contrast:

A seller’s obligation to deliver 1,000 books by a particular date exists because of the agreement.

That points toward contract law.

This is not an absolute test.

Courts may apply more complicated analyses, particularly when parties have an established contractual relationship.

But the source-of-duty question is an extremely useful starting point.

---

The Parties to the Case Can Be Different

Contract claims are generally based on obligations arising between the contracting parties.

This is closely connected to the concept of privity.

A person who is not a party to a contract may generally face significant limitations on bringing a contractual claim, although third-party beneficiary doctrines and other exceptions can apply.

Tort law is different.

A person can potentially have a tort claim against someone with whom the person has never had any contractual relationship.

For example:

A manufacturer produces a defective product.

A retailer sells it to B.

B is injured.

B may potentially have a products-liability claim against the manufacturer even though B never personally entered into a contract with the manufacturer.

This ability to impose duties beyond the immediate contractual relationship is one of the most important features of tort law.

---

Contractual Risk Allocation

Another major difference is that parties to a contract can often allocate risks by agreement.

Contracts may contain provisions concerning:

• warranties;
• indemnification;
• limitations of liability;
• insurance;
• arbitration;
• dispute resolution;
• choice of law;
• forum selection;
• delivery obligations;
• performance standards;
• and other matters.

The parties can therefore shape many aspects of their legal relationship.

Tort duties are generally not created through this type of negotiation.

They arise from the law.

However, contractual provisions can sometimes affect tort claims, and the enforceability of contractual limitations varies significantly according to the jurisdiction, type of claim, public policy, and other circumstances.

---

Can a Contract Waive Tort Liability?

Sometimes a contract attempts to limit or exclude liability for certain conduct.

Whether such a provision is enforceable depends on the applicable law.

Courts may scrutinize provisions involving:

• negligence;
• gross negligence;
• recklessness;
• intentional misconduct;
• consumer contracts;
• employment relationships;
• essential services;
• public policy;
• unequal bargaining power;
• and statutory protections.

Some forms of liability may not be waivable at all.

Therefore, the existence of an exculpatory clause does not automatically eliminate tort liability.

The precise language and governing law matter.

---

Tort Law vs. Contract Law: A Practical Example

Imagine that a homeowner hires a contractor to install a new roof.

The contractor promises to finish the project by June 1.

Instead, the contractor finishes three weeks late.

The homeowner suffers additional costs because of the delay.

This is primarily a contract issue.

The contractor failed to perform a contractual obligation.

Now imagine that while working on the roof, the contractor negligently drops a tool onto a neighbor standing below, seriously injuring the neighbor.

This is potentially a tort issue.

The neighbor does not need to rely on the homeowner’s contract with the contractor.

The neighbor’s claim arises from a duty of reasonable care imposed by tort law.

Now imagine a third situation.

The contractor knowingly uses defective materials despite promising the homeowner that only specified materials would be used.

The homeowner suffers property damage.

Now the dispute could potentially involve:

• breach of contract;
• negligence;
• fraud or misrepresentation;
• property damage;
• warranty claims;
• or other causes of action.

The correct legal analysis depends upon the exact facts and applicable law.

---

Tort Law and Contract Law Can Protect Different Expectations

Contract law is often described as protecting expectation interests.

The parties negotiate an exchange and create legally enforceable expectations about performance.

Tort law, by contrast, is concerned more broadly with protecting people from wrongful interference with legally protected interests.

This difference can be expressed as:

Contract

“You promised me something.”

Tort

“The law required you not to wrongfully harm me.”

This is not a complete definition of either field, but it provides an excellent conceptual starting point.

---

The Role of Consent

Consent operates differently in the two fields as well.

In contract law, agreement and consent are central to the creation of contractual obligations.

In tort law, consent can sometimes function as a defense to an intentional tort.

For example, participation in a consensual sporting activity may affect whether physical contact constitutes battery.

Thus, consent can be important in both fields but for different reasons.

In contract law:

Consent helps create the obligation.

In tort law:

Consent may sometimes justify conduct that would otherwise be wrongful.

---

The Role of Fault

Fault also operates differently.

Some contract breaches can create liability even when the breaching party acted without negligence or bad intent.

If a party promises to deliver goods on a particular date and fails to do so, the question may be whether the contractual obligation was performed—not necessarily whether the party was morally blameworthy.

Tort law often places greater emphasis on the defendant’s conduct and level of fault.

Negligence asks whether the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care.

Intentional torts examine the defendant’s intent.

Strict liability may impose liability without ordinary negligence.

This difference is important:

Contract liability can arise from failure to perform a promise even without wrongful intent, while many tort claims depend on the defendant’s conduct, fault, or legally defined responsibility.

---

The Importance of the Legal Relationship

Before analyzing a civil dispute, a lawyer should identify the relationship between the parties.

Ask:

• Are they strangers?
• Do they have a contract?
• Is there a professional relationship?
• Is there an employment relationship?
• Is one party a consumer?
• Is one party a manufacturer?
• Is one party a property owner?
• Did the alleged wrong occur before, during, or after formation of the contract?

These questions help identify the possible sources of legal obligation.

The same conduct can have different legal consequences depending upon the relationship between the parties.

---

A Lawyer’s Analytical Checklist

When faced with a dispute involving both contract and tort issues, ask:

1. Is there a contract?

If so, identify its terms.

2. What obligation was allegedly violated?

Was it a promise contained in the contract?

Or was it an independent legal duty?

3. Who owes the duty?

Is the plaintiff a contracting party?

Is the plaintiff a third party?

4. What cause of action applies?

Possible theories may include:

• breach of contract;
• negligence;
• fraud;
• battery;
• trespass;
• conversion;
• defamation;
• products liability;
• or another recognized claim.

5. What must the plaintiff prove?

Identify the elements of each claim separately.

6. What defenses apply?

Consider:

• contractual defenses;
• tort defenses;
• consent;
• comparative fault;
• contractual limitations;
• statutes of limitations;
• and other applicable doctrines.

7. What remedy is available?

Determine whether the plaintiff seeks:

• damages;
• specific performance;
• an injunction;
• restitution;
• punitive damages;
• or another remedy.

This approach prevents the common mistake of treating every civil dispute as either purely contractual or purely tortious.

---

The Economic Loss Doctrine and the Tort-Contract Boundary

The boundary becomes especially important when the plaintiff claims only economic losses.

Courts have developed different approaches to determining when a plaintiff can use tort law to recover losses that might otherwise be addressed through contract law.

The economic loss doctrine is one important example.

Its application varies significantly among jurisdictions.

The doctrine may limit tort recovery when the plaintiff’s losses are purely economic and arise from disappointed contractual expectations, particularly where no separate personal injury or property damage is involved.

But there are important exceptions and variations, including claims involving:

• fraud;
• negligent misrepresentation;
• professional duties;
• defective products;
• damage to other property;
• statutory causes of action;
• and other circumstances recognized by particular courts.

This is therefore an area where jurisdiction-specific research is especially important.

---

Why Contract Law Does Not Replace Tort Law

It would be a mistake to think that entering into a contract automatically converts every subsequent dispute into a contract case.

People remain subject to legal duties outside their contractual promises.

For example, two companies may have a contract governing their business relationship.

That contract does not necessarily give either company unlimited permission to:

• commit fraud;
• intentionally injure the other;
• defame employees;
• convert property;
• or engage in other independently wrongful conduct.

Whether a particular tort claim is available depends on the applicable law and the relationship between the alleged tort and the contractual obligations.

But the broader principle remains important:

A contract does not automatically erase independent duties imposed by law.

---

Why Tort Law Does Not Replace Contract Law

The opposite mistake is equally dangerous.

If parties voluntarily negotiate a contract, tort law should not automatically transform every broken promise into a tort.

Imagine that a supplier simply fails to deliver goods according to the agreed schedule.

The fact that the buyer suffers financial loss does not automatically mean that the supplier committed negligence.

The dispute may simply be a breach of contract.

Contract law exists precisely because people are permitted to make enforceable arrangements concerning their economic affairs.

The legal system therefore needs a distinction between:

failure to keep a promise

and

wrongful conduct independently prohibited by law.

---

The Central Boundary

The distinction can be summarized in one question:

Is the defendant being sued because the defendant broke a promise, or because the defendant violated a duty imposed by law?

If the claim is based primarily on failure to perform a contractual promise, contract law is likely to be central.

If the claim is based on conduct that violates an independent legal duty, tort law may be central.

If both occurred, the case may involve both.

---

Tort Law and Contract Law: The Conceptual Map

The relationship can be visualized as follows:

CONTRACT

Agreement
↓
Promise
↓
Contractual Duty
↓
Breach
↓
Contractual Remedy

TORT

Legally protected interest
↓
Duty imposed by law
↓
Wrongful conduct
↓
Causation and legally recognized harm
↓
Tort liability
↓
Civil remedy

And sometimes:

CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP

↓

Contractual Duties + Independent Tort Duties

This overlap is one of the most important features of modern civil litigation.

---

Key Takeaways

• Tort law and contract law are both branches of civil law, but they arise from different sources of obligation.
• Contractual duties generally arise from agreements between parties.
• Tort duties generally arise from law rather than voluntary agreement.
• Contract law primarily governs promises and contractual performance.
• Tort law primarily governs civil wrongs and violations of legally protected interests.
• A person can have tort duties toward someone with whom the person has no contract.
• A contractual relationship does not automatically eliminate independent tort duties.
• A breach of contract is not automatically a tort.
• The same facts can sometimes create both contractual and tort claims.
• Contract damages often focus on the injured party’s contractual expectations.
• Tort damages generally focus on legally recognized harm caused by wrongful conduct.
• Punitive damages are generally not available for an ordinary breach of contract but may be available for sufficiently wrongful tortious conduct under applicable law.
• The economic loss doctrine can restrict some tort claims for purely economic losses, but its application varies by jurisdiction.
• The source of the duty is often a useful starting point: Did the duty arise from the agreement, or would it exist even without the contract?
• Correctly identifying the cause of action is essential because the elements, defenses, remedies, and applicable limitations can differ.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between tort law and contract law?

Contract law generally governs obligations created by agreements between parties. Tort law generally governs duties imposed by law concerning wrongful conduct and legally protected interests.

Is tort law part of contract law?

No. Tort law and contract law are separate branches of civil law, although a single dispute can involve both.

Can the same conduct be both a breach of contract and a tort?

Yes. Depending on the facts, conduct may violate a contractual obligation and an independent tort duty.

Can you have a tort without a contract?

Yes. Many tort claims arise between people who have no contractual relationship.

Can you have a contract dispute without a tort?

Yes. A party can breach a contract without committing a tort.

What is an example of a tort without a contract?

A driver negligently injures a pedestrian. The driver and pedestrian generally do not need a contract for a negligence claim to exist.

What is an example of a contract claim without a tort?

A seller agrees to deliver goods on a particular date but fails to deliver them. The buyer may have a breach-of-contract claim even though the seller did not commit a tort.

Can you sue someone for both breach of contract and negligence?

Potentially, yes. Whether both claims are legally available depends on the facts, the nature of the duty, the jurisdiction, and doctrines governing the relationship between contract and tort claims.

What is the economic loss doctrine?

The economic loss doctrine is a body of rules that can restrict recovery under tort law for purely economic losses, particularly where the loss arises from disappointed contractual expectations. Its scope varies among jurisdictions.

Are tort damages and contract damages the same?

No. Although both can involve monetary compensation, contract damages generally focus on losses resulting from failure to perform the agreement, while tort damages generally compensate for legally recognized harm caused by the tort.

Can a contract waive tort liability?

Sometimes, but enforceability depends on the contract, the type of conduct involved, applicable statutes and common law, public policy, and the jurisdiction. Some forms of liability cannot effectively be waived.

Is fraud a tort or a contract claim?

Fraud is generally treated as a tort, although fraudulent conduct can occur in connection with a contract and may give rise to both tort and contract-related claims.

---

Further Reading

For an authoritative overview of tort law and related civil-law concepts, see the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (LII), Wex.

Cornell Law School — Legal Information Institute: Tort

Cornell’s Wex collection also provides resources concerning contracts, breach of contract, damages, economic loss, and related legal doctrines.

---

Conclusion

Tort law and contract law are closely connected because both regulate civil relationships and can result in monetary remedies. But they begin from fundamentally different ideas.

Contract law begins with agreement.

The parties voluntarily create obligations and then the law determines whether those obligations are enforceable and what consequences follow from breach.

Tort law begins with a duty imposed by law.

The parties may never have agreed to anything. Nevertheless, the law can require them to respect one another’s bodily integrity, property, reputation, privacy, and other legally protected interests.

The distinction can therefore be remembered through two questions:

What did the parties promise each other?

and

What did the law require them to do regardless of any promise?

The first question points toward contract law.

The second points toward tort law.

But real disputes are often more complicated. A contractual relationship can contain both contractual obligations and independent tort duties. A single event can therefore produce both breach-of-contract and tort claims.

The lawyer’s task is to identify the source of each duty, determine the elements of each possible cause of action, examine the applicable defenses, and then determine what remedies the law permits.

Once this distinction is understood, the boundary between Tort Law and Contract Law becomes much clearer—and the reader is ready to examine the individual torts themselves.

The next questions naturally become much more concrete:

What is negligence? What duty does one person owe another? When does careless conduct become legally actionable? And how do courts determine whether a defendant has breached the required standard of care?

Those questions lead us to the central pillar of Tort Law:

Negligence.