Torts study notes Essay

Tort which is different of crimes are defined as wrong actions usually perpetrated by someone against another one and are prosecuted according to the legislation of the state involved. As a result of this situation the victim party may engage some civils actions against the responsible party. The party injured in a case sought for reparation of damages usually compensatory or monetary instead of the incarceration of the party responsible of the injury. The subject is very attractive because it is subject to many critics. People who are opposed to this law believe that it is unfair because the victim party can misused the power given to them by the state and sue someone under fallacious grounds and successfully get away with it. Also, they

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

Kaycee will not be able to recover damages because football is a very physical sport and Kaycee

     Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence evaluates the premise that the rate of crime in any population is a function of both general and specific deterrence. Using empirical data deprived from their own practical experience, as well as from the observations and experiments of their other colleagues in their field, they attempt to establish their theory of the reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. First, it is important to understand the background of their work and the foundation of deterrence. There are two types of deterrence, general and specific. In analyzing the deterrent effects it is highly important to distinguish between general and specific deterrence, because they are very different. General deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on the general public (i.e., potential

This article discusses the deterrence of crime through sanctions, and begins with a brief history of how much do we really know about criminal deterrence. Although, two Enlightenment philosophers, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham created the conceptual foundation for deterrence and rational theory, interest in deterrence and rational choice based theories of criminal offending, was later eclipsed by biologically and psychologically based explanations. Interest in deterrence theory and the deterrent effect of legal sanctions was not rekindled until the mid- 1960s. This article discusses the particular and important role of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in publishing the works of both those who were highly critical of deterrence theory and those who wished to keep it

“Policy reasoning has been a central, perhaps the central, characteristic of the judicial development of tort law.”

In the case of Gregg v Scott, The House of Lords confronted the issue of financial recovery for the loss of chance in a case involving medical negligence. By a majority of 3-2, their Lordships refused to recognize loss of chance as leading to a recovery of damages.

Tort is a civil wrong for which a court of law provides remedy for a civil wrong that has been committed against an individual, Remedy could be sought for a personal loss, financial loss, and personal injury (Smith, 1993). “A tort is simply the Norman word for a wrong but torts have typically been distinguished from crimes and from wrongs identified with contractual relations. Tort law, then, is concerned with civil wrongs not arising from contracts” (White, 2003, p.xxiii).During the very early years of tort been introduced in to legal discourse and proceeding, tort was considered as a wrong that came by way or forceful damage or hurt. It was widely regarded both as a civil wrong and a criminal during those early years, civil wrongs can be classified as a wrong that involves no violence and also a wrong that involves an element of force and violence (Street, 1906).

The law of torts can be traced back to English Common Law and has become and integral part of Anglo-American Law for hundreds of years .These laws have been modified many times since the late 1800's by state legislatures and these changes have given plaintiffs more chance of success when bringing forth their claims. Original tort law included coverage for injuries suffered while in the workplace but this since has been removed entirely from tort law and replaced with the state administered workers compensation systems. In order for a plaintiff to utilize the law of torts certain elements need to be present so that a reasonable measure of success can be ensured in the outcome.

“Victims of crime are increasingly resorting to civil litigation, in addition to victim compensation and restitution, as a means of recovering from the ill effects of crime. Moreover, victims’ rights advocates are advocating civil remedies as one way for victims to reassert control” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). “ These suits are brought because the courts possess powers that private parties do not; courts can, for example, order a person to pay a business money owed under a contract or award monetary damages suffered for an injury received in an automobile accident” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014).

This project will analyze torts in the workplace. In any professional setting or work environment, one must be able to recognize exposures, risks and civil matters. This applies for employers and employees. Both parties are responsible for the safety of each other, and those around them. The ability to recognize exposures can help these party’s to protect themselves. Not only will this knowledge or idea become a great tool for the success of their everyday activities, but also a success for the organization. Moving on to the topic, torts are civil wrongs, other than breach of contract (Lau & Johnson, 2014). When involved in the workplace, there can be many factors that can hurt an employee, physically or mentally. This is why supervision is necessary, and must take part during the training or introduction of a new

The defence of illegality, otherwise referred to as ex turpi causa non oritur actio, meaning ‘no action can be founded upon a wicked act’, has developed irregularly over the last 20 years. The defence applies to all torts including negligence, and arises when a plaintiff engaged in illegal activity makes a claim for compensation when injured in the course of that activity. The precise basis for this doctrine is indeed difficult to discern , especially with recent cases from the Supreme Court reaching seemingly inconsistent decisions. In Hounga v Allen , Lord Wilson identifies several conceptualisations of the illegality defence, namely, the public conscience test, the reliance test, the inextricable link test, the causation approach in Gray v Thames Trains Limited , and the public policy approach. Soon after Hounga, a differently constituted Supreme Court in Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex adopted a vastly different reasoning in applying the doctrine, while Jetivia v Bilta revisited the same issue not long after, with Lord Neuberger concluding that the correct course of action was for the Supreme Court to address this topic again in front of seven or nine Justices, with full argument on the illegality defence. I believe that Lord Wilson is necessarily right in saying that the foundation for the illegality doctrine is difficult to ascertain, and will remain so until Parliament or the Supreme Court settles the issue clearly.

In the instances, which occurred in a local pub, several claims under the law of Tort arise. Trespass to the Person and Negligence appear in the scenario and all parties need to be advised.

In contrast, through exploring the civil and criminal cases throughout this essay, it can be seen that common law is equally, if not more compelling in the development of civil and criminal liability, and therefore leads to changes in the law.

The first one focuses on “the limits the Constitution has been held to place on punitive damages and on state commercial regulation that runs afoul of the so-called "dormant Commerce Clause" idea”. The author “then discuss a few reasons why, at least in the dormant Commerce Clause setting but perhaps more generally as well the strong form of