Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort. ‘Reparation of inflicted harm is without a doubt considered the primary function of tort law in any legal system.’ Compensation is a form of corrective justice that can take a variety of forms. It is usually monetary in nature and manifested in an award of damages but may also be injunctive where necessary or take the form of self-help relief. According to Cecil A Wright; in modern living there must of necessity be losses and therefore, the purpose of the law of torts is to adjust these losses and to afford compensation for injuries sustained by one person as a result of the conduct of another . Where compensation takes the form of a monetary award, it adequately satisfies the plaintiff for any financial harm caused . For example... ... middle of paper ... ...O’Connell, 5 jun. 1997, Unreported Supreme Court. • Dillon v Dunne Stores, 20 dec. 1968, Unreported Supreme Court. • Doherty v Bowaters Irish Wallboard Mills Ltd [1968] IR 285. • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 587. • Garvey v Ireland [1981] ILRM 226. • Kennedy et al. v Ireland & Attorney General [1988], ILRM 651. • McIntyre v Lewis [1991] 1 IR 131. • Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691. • Roche v Peilow 1985] IR 232. • Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129. • Thompson v Smith Ship repairers Ltd. [1984] QB 405, (1984) 1 Al1 ER 881. • Ward v McMaster [1988] IR 3237. • Whelan v Madigan [1978] ILRM 136. • Richard Kidner, Casebook on Torts (12th, Oxford, e.g. Oxford 2012). • J. M. Kelly, ‘The Malicious Injuries Code and the Constitution’. The Irish Jurist, vol. 4, New Series (NS) 221. • Cecil Wright, ‘Introduction to the Law of Torts’ (1942) 8 Cambridge Law Journal 238, 243.
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice, John Marshall And the Rule Of Law. University Press Of Kansas: Wison Garey McWilliams & Lance Banning, 1996.
Bailey Press --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] (2000) 2 All ER 289, [2] QB 133 [3] (1965) 2 QB 29 [4] 15 Ch D 96 [5] Law Com. No. 164 (1987), para.
there must have been a wrongful act committed and the plaintiff must have suffered. (Cannell)
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
As shown by history, victims have not been given proper attention by the Criminal Justice System. The first significant reform in the Criminal Justice System in Australia was the one which had occurred in 1967. A British magistrate and social reformer, Margaret Fry, directed attention to victims and the failure of the state to come up with a plan to compensate them in her book, Arms of the law 1951. Margaret Fry refined her thesis in the late 1950’s, insisting state compensation to be given to victims in order to provide them with satisfactory restitution. A debate which later followed let to the enactment of compensation for criminal injuries, legislation was enacted by New South Wales in 1967. This is one of the reforms which shows that victims are catalysts for far-reaching reforms. Compensation which provides victims of crimes with satisfactory restitution is what Restorative Justice is about. Restorative Justice generally involves bringing victims and offenders together aiming to engage in a conversation about the crime that has occurred and the effects it has had on the victim. The main aim of this is to repair the harm which resulted from the crime. The offenders accountability is emphasised along side with the important of restoring the balance through harm being
after suffering harm from the acts of the other party (Turner, 2013). A tort is a civil wrong
This is where the individuals exercise their rights to seek compensations for damages or injuries. Also this is a law that is not controlled by the judges based on previous things that had happen in the past.
Plucknett, Theodore F.T. A Concise History of the Common Law, 5th Ed. London: Butterworth, 1956.
Civil law includes all types of law other than criminal law. It deals with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim. The purpose of civil law is to deal with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim ("Civil Law vs Criminal Law."). This type of cases is filed under private party and the judge decides if the candidate is liable or not. The party who brings up the suit is known as a platiff, and the party who is accused of the harm is known as a defendant. Compensation (usually financial) for injuries or damages, or an injunction in nuisance is a result of punishment. Examples of a civil law would include Landlord/tenant disputes, divorce proceedings, child custody proceedings, property disputes, personal injury, etc("Civil Law vs Criminal Law.").
Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [2] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [3] The Law of Torts. 9th edition.
William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner. The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Harvard University Press, 1987.
From the 1990s, the reports that cover the compensation cases increased dramatically in the mass media (Almond, 2004). There is a view that a huge number of tort cases in the ‘compensation culture’ are unjustified and unfair. In the mid-1990s, the term ‘compensation culture’ first appeared in a famous British newspaper (Levin, 1993). Actually, this is an extreme view, which will be criticized in this paper. This essay emphasizes the compensation culture is a myth (Morris, 2007). There are three reasons: Firstly, the data of the tort claims declined in recent years. Secondly, some victims do not receive the compensation or enough compensation that they deserve. Thirdly, the mass media and public organizations created the ‘compensation