Tort Law And Tort Law

Tort Law (“TL”) is classified as one of the most important branch of Civil Law in this 21st century. TL is usually a recourse for aggrieved parties to seek remedy; most of the time contemplating financial compensation (“damages”) for having suffered due to the wrongdoings (“tort”) of others. It is constantly averred that one of the declared aims of TL is deterrence. However many have pinpointed towards the existence of other aims of TL, as being the medium; for blaming and claiming unreasonable monetary damages without merit and bringing nuisance to the defendants (also known as the compensation culture), to bring out the truth and unknown facts relating to a particular tortious incident, and also to punish the culprits in a certain way. It

Can it be said that deterrence is or should be the main aim of TL; and can it as the main aim be a double-edged sword? It remains a paradox whether the reality matches the rhetoric. Let us analyse the facts.

It is a fact to reckon that tortious liability does deter tortious conduct to a large extent. The number of claims barely increased since the year 2000 ; the rate being around 3% . Another indicative figure is provided by the British government’s Better Regulation Task Force (“The Task Force”) who pointed out that the sum of money of tort claims amounted to only 0.6% of its GDP, being one of the lowest compared to other countries. At the very outset, the idea of being liable for wrongdoings leading to court summons, acts as the primary deterrent. In this context, The Compensation Act 2006 gives a strong signal to potential wrongdoers that they would be civilly liable under this statute if they inflict tort to other parties. Also, the purpose of Section 2

In this view, newspapers also hesitate to publish articles on wrongdoings of those classes of persons or organisations as they fear for being sued for defamation and hence limit the deterrence effect of TL. Judges have also contributed in making TL a strong deterrent by imposing exemplary (punitive) damages alongside compensatory damages in several cases such as Rookes v Barnard and Cassell & Ltd v Broome , amongst others. Lord Nichols in Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary , held that exemplary damages “are additional to an award which is intended to compensate a plaintiff fully for the loss he has suffered, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary. They are intended to punish and deter.” However punitive damages can also act contrarily by opening a floodgate for victims to try seeking huge damages and this would tend to boost a compensation culture. It is also true that the rationale for people not inflicting damages to third parties is due to “the fear of criminal, not civil,