Assignment #2 Question 1: What is the purpose of tort law? What types of damages are available in tort lawsuits? Primarily, the purpose of tort law is to provide relief to injured parties for harms and/or damages caused by the person being sued for tort as well as to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, which is ultimately aimed to deter others from committing harmful acts, whether intentional or unintentional. In tort law, damages extend not only to physical injury sustained and/or personal safety, but also to another person’s property, dignity, and reputation (emotional pain and suffering) that is recognized by statute or common law (protected interest) as a legitimate basis for liability. In tort
Compensation serves as the primary course to restitution in tort law in India and world in general. Torts traces itself to the jurisdiction of Britain and developed as a concept to look for the wrongs inflicted by one towards another. Wrongs of such nature that they were neither grave enough to be construed as the ones which are within the ambit of crime nor so trivial as to be overlooked. Now to provide relief from such wrongs was torts developed and the way for providing relief was primarily the payment of compensation by tortfeasor for infliction of such harm and causing disturbance in the normal course of life of one individual through one’s own manner of leading one’s own life. Institutional provisions are not "self-executing" in the
Torts are defined as wrongdoings committed by one party against another party. When a tort is committed, the injured party may sue the other party that engaged in the wrongdoing. Tort law is set to decide whether a party should be held legally responsible for the injury caused to another party, and also what type of compensation the injured party should acquire if it needs so. An example of a tort is when a customer trips on loose cables in an electronics store. The customer becomes the injured party; the plaintiff; and the electronics store becomes the negligent party; the defendant.
For pure comparative, plaintiff damages are totalled and then reduced to reflect their contribution. For example, is the plaintiff is awarded $1,000 and the judge or jury says the plaintiff is 25% responsible for the incident, the plaintiff will actually get $750. For modified comparative, the plaintiff will not recover if they are found to be equally or more responsible for the injury. This is the most common approach. There was an accident in which the plaintiff was injured and sued the defendant for $100,00 to cover the cost of his injuries.
Under the tort liability law, also known as "the law of negligence", a person is considered liable for committing a tort, if they have failed to satisfy the standard of care - a standard determined by the behavior of a reasonably prudent individual. The tortfeasor's actions are measured against the actions of a reasonably prudent person, and they are found to be below-standard, the individual is guilty of negligence. The tort liability law applies mainly to unintentional torts. In the case of intentional torts and strict liability torts, the defendant is found guilty regardless of negligence. If a wrongful act is done deliberately, the possibility of negligence is ruled out automatically.
THE EFFICIENCY OF STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW Most offences are now defined by statute. Usually the statute will state whether the offence requires a mental element and also define what the mental element is. Often the definition uses a word or phrase like “knowingly”, “recklessly”, “wilfully” and “dishonestly” in which it gives guidance to the court. But in some statute this kind of word or phrase is absence, hence the court will find that mens rea is not required. And this is basically in what so called strict liability and it is also can be seen an exception to the general principle of a criminal liability.
“A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract, or the breach of a trust, or the breach of other merely equitable obligation”- Salmond The words ‘tort’ has originated from the Medieval Latin word ‘tortum’ which literally means injustice. But to be more specific, torts law is a vast branch of law which deals with civil wrongs like negligence (of different sorts), battery, harassment and trespass among others. In common parlance, torts may be described as the wing under which all claims pertaining to civil rights are brought and monetary compensation is awarded to right the people who have been hurt or their property damaged. Entering a property without
Introduction Torts are crimes that a party commits wrong to another. The injured party is allowed by law to sue the perpetrator. The injured party will be the plaintiff while the perpetrator will be termed as tortfeasor. There are different kind of Torts, however the Negligence Tort, which is when a party fails to care for the other when they are obligated to by circumstance. The primary aim of this paper is to formulate a case study and discuss the Tort of negligence in the event.
On the other hand, in tort and negligence matter, once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be. The test for remoteness of damage in tortuous and negligence matter are whether the kind of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach of duty and the damage must be direct consequences of the breach of
2.0 Exceptions Generally, where a buyer agreed to pay more than the subject-matter is worth, the buyer cannot recover substantial damages in respect merely of the non-conformity of the goods delivered to him if those goods are worth no less than they would have been, if he had been in conformity with the contract. Under the common law, damages are generally irrecoverable for the loss of reputation and credibility. However under certain circumstances, damages for loss of reputation may be granted. In the case of Addis v Gramophone Co. Ltd , the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a manager. However, the defendant in breach of contract dispensed the plaintiff’s services and replaced him with a new manager.