Contract Law Law Essays. The law essays below were written by students to help you with your own studies. If you are looking for help with your law essay then we offer a comprehensive writing service provided by fully qualified academics in your field of study Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law blogger.com means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury.A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or Tort law is largely based on common sense and the understanding prevalent between people in their everyday interactions with each other. The purpose of tort law is to ensure that people reasonably coexist with each other. In case of a tort case there are two parties involved in
Theories of the Common Law of Torts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Tort is a branch of private law. The other main branches are contract, property, and restitution sometimes known as unjust enrichment. Section 1 offers a brief overview of tort law and tort theory. Section 2 discusses economic analysis, which is the historically dominant tort theory and the tort law essays foil for philosophical perspectives on tort law. Section 3 discusses the most influential non-economic tort theories, theories that emphasize such normative concepts as justice, rights, and duties.
A tort suit enables tort law essays victim of a wrong to seek a remedy from the person who injured her. Unlike a criminal case, which is initiated and managed by the state, a tort suit is prosecuted by the victim or the victim's estate or survivors. Moreover, a successful tort suit results in a judgment of liability, rather than a sentence of punishment.
Such a judgment normally requires the defendant to compensate the plaintiff financially. In principle, an award of compensatory damages shifts all of the plaintiff's legally tort law essays costs to the defendant. It is controversial whether tort really lives up to this principle in practice.
On rare occasions, a plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages, which go beyond what it necessary for compensation. In other cases, a plaintiff may obtain an injunction : a court order preventing the defendant from injuring her or from invading her rights perhaps harmlessly. An example of the former would be awarding a plaintiff or a class of plaintiffs an injunction against a polluting manufacturer. An example of the latter would be awarding a plaintiff an injunction against a harmless trespass.
But tort law does not concern itself with all the wrongs that people do, tort law essays. Some wrongs are addressed by the criminal law, not private law some are addressed by both.
And not every wrong that falls within the province of private law falls within tort law. A breach of contract, for example, is not traditionally regarded as a tort. More generally, tort law does not provide a remedy for every wrong that a victim might suffer. Rather, tort law offers relief for a canonical set of wrongs, tort law essays, or torts.
These include assault, battery, defamation, and trespass, among many others. Rather than focusing on categories of torts, it is more fruitful to begin by conceptualizing torts in terms of the elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to obtain a remedy. For example, tort law essays, a defendant commits battery if she acts, intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff, and such contact in fact results from her act.
If a plaintiff meets the burden of establishing these elements, tort law essays, then he or she has established a prima facie case for battery. A defendant who commits a battery so defined might nevertheless escape liability by asserting a defense. For example, a defendant in a battery action might avoid liability by showing that she acted in self-defense or that the plaintiff consented to the otherwise unlawful touching.
Many think of battery and trespass as the paradigmatic private wrongs and thus as paradigmatic torts. Conceiving of torts in terms of the paradigmatic case invites the thought that tort law proceeds by identifying wrongs that share some important normative characteristics with either trespass or battery—for example, that a tort involves an intention to disregard certain protected rights tort law essays others; and perhaps that the fundamental rights protected by torts are those pertaining to the security of person and property.
It also invites the thought that the aim or purpose of tort law is to redress those wrongs. We will explore this approach to tort law in some detail in what follows. While not denying or downplaying the significance of the concept of wrong to understanding tort law, other theorists are inclined to express the centrality of it in torts in terms of a more generic formulation: namely, the duty each us has in undertaking various activities not to injure those our undertakings put at risk.
On this view, the core duty in torts is not to injure others either full stop or unjustifiably. In addition, this alternative view captures the centrality of the notion of a wrong without inviting the idea that the wrongs that fall within the domain of tort law must exhibit some of the normatively significant features of battery or trespass.
Beyond that, tort law essays, the alternative view introduces the notion of injury and invites the idea that the concern of tort law is to address injuries in some way or other; either, for example, by addressing their costs or the suffering that normally attends them.
Thus, while the notion of a wrong remains important to our understanding of tort law, the alternative view invites the thought that the underlying concern of tort law is to address the costs, suffering, or more generally, the losses that victims suffer as a result. As helpful as the focus on injuries is, it is important to see that the concept of an injury cannot, by itself, play the foundational role in a theory of tort law.
After all, tort law essays, the law does not recognize just any injury as the basis of a claim in tort. If you beat me in tennis or in competition for the affections of another, I may well be injured. Yet I have no claim in tort to repair my bruised ego or broken heart. Since you lack a legal duty not to beat me in tennis or in competition for the affections of another, tort law essays, you do not act tortiously tort law essays you succeed at my expense. Thus, tort law essays, even if we take tort to be an institution that addresses injuries, will still stand in need of an account of just which injuries it is wrong to cause.
When you engage in an activity the law regards as extremely hazardous e. When you engage in more common activities e. Your conduct is governed by fault liability when you are subject to a duty not to injure negligently or carelessly.
It is worth exploring the difference between strict liability and fault liability in greater detail, since the development of both tort law and tort theory is in part a story about the choice between them.
Strict liability. Suppose I make a mess on my property and present you with the bill for cleaning it up. Absent some prior agreement, this would seem rather odd. It is my mess, after all, not yours, tort law essays. Now suppose that instead of making a mess on my property and presenting you with the bill, I make a mess on your property and walk away, claiming that the mess is your problem.
If it was inappropriate of me to present you with the bill for the mess I made on my property, it hardly seems that I have improved matters tort law essays my mess on your property. I have a duty to clean up my messes and the existence of this duty does not appear to depend on how hard I tort law essays tried not to make a mess in the first place. In other words, it does not depend on whether I made the mess absentmindedly or carelessly.
All that matters is that it is my mess; that is to say, I made it, tort law essays. And if I make it, it is mine to clean. This is a helpful way of capturing the underlying intuition expressed by the rule of strict liability. Fault liability. Unless we stay home all day, we are each bound to make the occasional mess in one another's life. This being so, it would be unreasonable of me to demand that you never make any kind of mess in my life.
What I can reasonably demand is that tort law essays take my interests into account and moderate your behavior accordingly. In particular, I can reasonably demand that you take ordinary care i, tort law essays.
In other words, I can reasonably demand that you refrain from negligently injuring me. This is a useful way of capturing the underlying intuition expressed by the rule of fault liability. People sometimes misunderstand the nature of fault liability in tort because they misunderstand the nature of strict liability in tort. And they misunderstand the nature of strict liability in tort because their inclination is to model it on the notion of strict liability in the criminal law, with which many theorists and laypersons alike are more familiar.
Strict liability in the criminal law is a form of responsibility without culpability, tort law essays. If you are strictly liable for a criminal offense, you are punishable for the offense even if your conduct is not morally blameworthy, tort law essays. The standard way to express this is to say that strict liability in criminal law is not defeasible by the kind of excuse one would offer in order to defeat an attribution of culpability or blameworthy e.
If we conceived similarly of strict liability in tort, we would then understand fault liability, tort law essays, incorrectly, as liability that tort law essays defeasible by excuses that establish the absence of culpability, in other words, as liability only for one's culpable conduct.
But you can be at fault in tort even if your conduct is not morally blameworthy, tort law essays. Under a regime of fault liability, you are liable for injuries you cause while failing to comport yourself as a reasonable person would in the circumstances.
It won't get you off the hook that you are not tort law essays reasonable person, or that could not come up to that standard in this case. Nor will it matter tort law essays your failure to come up to that standard is a failure for which you are utterly blameless.
Fault liability is not defeasible by excuses that establish the absence of culpability. This raises the question of how to distinguish fault liability from strict liability in tort law, since neither is defeasible by a showing of blamelessness. The difference between the two regimes of liability is that only under fault can you avoid liability if you comport yourself as a reasonable person—in other words, if you act reasonably or justifiably—whereas you remain subject to strict liability even if you had sufficient reason for what you did.
Thus, fault liability, but not strict liability, can be undermined by justification. Some find it helpful to distinguish between strict liability and fault liability in terms of the content of the underlying legal duty. In the case of blasting—an activity traditionally governed by strict liability—the tort law essays has a duty not-to-injure-by-blasting. In the case of tort law essays activity traditionally governed by fault liability—the driver has a duty not-to-injure-by-driving-negligently.
In contrast, the driver fails to discharge his duty only when he injures someone negligently. Analytical theories seek to interpret and explain tort law. More specifically, they aim i to identify the concepts that figure centrally in tort's substantive norms and structural features the latter being the procedures and mechanisms by which the institution of tort law enforces its substantive norms and ii to explain how tort's substantive norms and structural features are related.
Key substantive norms include the wrongs that tort recognizes and the remedies that it provides for those wrongs. Normative theories seek to justify or reform tort law. Justificatory theories aim to provide tort with a normative grounding, often by defending the values tort embodies or the goals it aims to achieve.
Reformist theories seek to improve tort law, say, by recommending changes that would bring the institution closer in line with its core values or would help it do a better job of achieving its goals. The distinction between analytical and normative theories is not exclusive. On the contrary, few analytical theories are altogether devoid of normative elements and no normative theory is ever devoid of analytical elements.
All the more so, normative theories are always at least partly analytical, since such theories must either provide or presuppose some account of the institution they seek to justify or reform. Along another axis, we can distinguish between theories of tort based on whether they are instrumental or non-instrumental. This distinction cuts across the distinction between the analytical and the normative. Instrumental theories regard tort's essential features as explicable in terms of an overarching purpose, typically, tort law essays, the remediation of some social problem, such as the problem of allocating the costs of life's misfortunes.
These theories do not always agree on tort law essays specific principles that govern or ought to govern the allocation of costs. This is in part because they disagree about the further purposes that tort serves or ought to serve in tort law essays costs.
Some theorists believe that tort aims or ought to aim at allocating costs efficiently. Others believe that tort aims or ought to aim at allocating costs fairly. Both sorts of theorist treat tort instrumentally, as a tool for solving a social problem.
How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 1): Palsgraf \u0026 The Duty of Care
, time: 13:40Law and Morality Principles Summary - Law Essays
Contract Law Law Essays. The law essays below were written by students to help you with your own studies. If you are looking for help with your law essay then we offer a comprehensive writing service provided by fully qualified academics in your field of study Aug 12, · These Law essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies. * This essay may have been previously published on blogger.com at an earlier date. What are the differences between 'contract' and 'tort'? Law assignment - offers and invitations to treat; Sep 22, · Tort is a branch of private law. The other main branches are contract, property, and restitution (sometimes known as unjust enrichment). Section 1 offers a brief overview of tort law and tort
No comments:
Post a Comment