Which is NOT a requirement to prevail in a tort action?

In a tort action, it is essential to demonstrate that a legal duty existed, that damages resulted from a breach of that duty, and that there is a direct cause linking the breach to the damages incurred. However, the requirement for a witness to testify is not necessary for the plaintiff to prevail in a tort action.

The absence of a witness doesn't preclude the plaintiff from proving their case. Tort cases can rely on various forms of evidence, including documentary evidence, expert testimony, or even the plaintiff's own statements. Therefore, the success of a tort claim does not hinge on whether a witness appears in court to provide testimony; it is evaluated based on the other necessary elements of duty, damage, and causation.