Reply with your opinion on classmates response below A negligent tort act involves a situation where one has no intention of doing someone wrong or harm but the victim suffers harm or hurt any way. Now, in the situation where the victim suffers injury or harm due to the perpetrator intentionally deciding to engage in that act then an intentional trot act can be said to occur. The last tort or strict liability tort is one that it is possible to impose wrongful act on a perpetrator of an legal act even if the action is not a negligent act. Let’s take for example a situation involving two students fighting and during the fighting one student strikes the other so hard the student falls and gets a big head cut as a consequent, the the act is said to be an intentional tort relating to assault and or battery. Should it be that the perpetrator had no intention to strike the victim but did that any way, that becomes a negligent ct . These two are different from a manufacturer of student products that produce a defective product that causes another student to choke on the product, that becomes a strict liability issue. It similar as in our case review this week where a medical practitioner intentionally performs an act that causes harm to a patient in this case a cancer patient becasue the medical practitioner intended to do harm to the patient. That is an intentional tort ct. It becomes a negligent tort acct if it can be determined that the medical practitioner had no intention of causing harm to the breast cancer patient in the dispensation of his duty though the patient sustains an injury. Should the medical practitioner dispence a medication or drug that causes harm to the patient unintentionally or negligently and the harm cause can imposed or attributed to the fault of the manufacturer then it becomes a strict liability issue. The four elements relating to negligence tort comprise; 1. duty ownership- where it is clear a defendant owed a victim some level of duty or care; which in this case review ment that the medical practitioner, Dr. Evans had the duty of making sure that his patient receive the care she deserves under his role as the leading medical practitioner; then there is 2. duty violation or failure to provide expected care, which in this instance meant the medical practitioner failed to perform his suty as expected or required. It would be safe to contend that in this medical case review the standard of care fell far short of what a reasonable person would expect. The failure is inherent in the misdiagnosis of the patient’s condition and as such apply persistent inaccurate treatment.; the third component is injury resultant from #1 and #2. The medication application as well other related medical practices employed did not help to treat the patient’s actual condition (i.e., cancer0 which as such serve as the harm inflicted on the patient; and the fourth point is an actual injury occurrence, as in the case reviewed. Many medical practitioner take medical insurance because of medical mishaps suits like this and such incidents are real in America healthcare system.