Which aspect is NOT part of proving a Negligent Tort under Prima Facie?

To understand why showing intentional harm is not part of proving a negligent tort under prima facie, it's important to clarify what features are essential in establishing negligence. In order to successfully claim a negligent tort, a plaintiff must demonstrate several specific elements: duty owed, breach of that duty, causation linking the breach to the harm, and damages suffered as a result.

Negligence involves a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances, which means the actions—or lack of actions—are typically not intentional but result from carelessness or oversight. Therefore, showing intentional harm is irrelevant in a negligence case. Intentional harm would fall under the category of intentional torts, which require different elements to establish liability.

In practical terms, when a case of negligence is presented, the focus is on whether the defendant acted reasonably and whether their lack of reasonable care led to harm for the plaintiff. Thus, proving intentional harm does not align with the legal definition and requirements of negligence.