A tort , in the jurisdiction of common law, is a civil error that causes others to suffer harm or loss which results in a legal obligation for the person who commits an abusive act.
The person doing the action is called tortfeasor . Although a crime can be a lawsuit, the cause of legal action is not always a crime, since its loss may be due to an omission that is not equivalent to a criminal negligence. Injured victims can recover their losses as damages in the lawsuit. To win, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the injured party , must indicate that the action or lack of action is the cause of the legally recognizable loss. The equivalent of a tort in the jurisdiction of civil law is offense.
Legal injury is not limited to physical injury and may include emotional, economic, or reputation injuries as well as breaches of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts consists of a variety of topics such as car accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic lawsuits). While many lawsuits are the result of negligence, the lawsuit also recognizes a deliberate lawsuit, in which a person has deliberately acted in a way that harms others, and in some cases (especially for product liability in the United States), the strict responsibility, which allowing recovery without needing to show negligence.
The law of tort is different from the criminal law in the case of: (1) the lawsuit may be caused by negligence and deliberate action or crime and (2) the lawsuit has a lower burden of proof as more evidence than without reasonable doubt. Sometimes the plaintiff may win in case of a lawsuit even if the person suspected of causing the loss is released in the previous criminal proceeding. For example, O. J. Simpson was released in criminal murder court but later found to be responsible for error by mistake.
Video Tort
History
Roman law contained provisions for torts in the form of offenses, which subsequently influenced the jurisdiction of civil law on the Continent, but a different legal entity appeared in the world of common law traced to English tort laws. The word 'tort' was first used in the legal context of the 1580s, although different words were used for the same concept before this time.
Medieval
Torts and crimes in common law are derived from the German system of fines compensation for errors (OE unriht ), without a clear distinction between crime and other errors. In Anglo-Saxon law, most mistakes require payment in the form of money or goods ( b? T , literally 'medicine') to the disadvantaged person or their clan. W? te '(literally' blame, error ') is paid to the king or the court holder for public order disturbance. Weregild , which is a murder charge based on the value of the victim, is intended to prevent bloodbreaking. Some errors in the later legal code are botleas 'without drugs' (eg theft, open killing, burning, betrayal of a person's lord), that is, unpensant, and those convicted of botleas crime is at the mercy of the king. The goods or creatures that cause death are also destroyed as deodorants. Assessing intentions is a matter of trial, but Alfred the Great's Doom Book does not distinguish accidental intentional injuries, while errors depend on status, age, and gender.
After the Norman Conquest, the fine was paid only to the courts or kings, and quickly became a source of income. Falsely known as tort or an intruder , and there appears a split between a civil appeal and a crown petition. Small assizes (ie novel disseisin, mort d'eurestor, and poet darrein) were founded in 1166 as a cure for disruption with ownership of property rights. The offense is an initial civil application in which the damage is paid to the victim; if no payment is made, the defendant is imprisoned. Applications appear in local courts to slander, breach of contract, or disruption to land, goods, or persons. Although the details of the exact origin are unclear, it became popular in the royal palace so that in 1250 an infringement warrant was made and made de cursu (available correctly, not cost); However, it is limited to disruption to land and forced breaches of the king's peace. It may appear either from "crime appeal", or assize novel disseisin, or replevin. Then, after the Statute of Westminster 1285, in the 1360s, the act of "offense on the case" arose when the defendant had no direct powers. As the scope increases, it becomes just "action on this case". The British Justice Act granted 1873 to 1875 abolished separate acts of offenses and offenses in this case.
In 1401, the English case of Beaulieu v Finglam imposed strict liability to escape from the fire; In addition, strict liability is imposed for livestock release. Careless handling is of paramount importance in this society given the relatively limited capacity for destruction and fire fighting resources. The obligation to the general operator, which emerged around 1400, was also emphasized in the medieval period. Unintentional injuries are relatively rare in the medieval period. As transport improved and wagons became popular in the 18th and 19th centuries, however, collisions and carelessness became more prominent in court records. In general, British scholars such as William Blackstone take a view of enmity against litigation, and rules against champerty and maintenance and irritating litigation exist. Limitations on determining the cause of the action are related rules based on public policy.
influence of English
The right of the victim to receive compensation is considered by British scholars in the future as one of the rights of the English. The Blackstone's Commentary on English Law, published in the late 18th century, contains volume on "personal error" as a lawsuit and even uses the word in some places. United States influence
United States lawsuit law is influenced by English law and Blackstone's Comment on English Law, with some state constitutions specifically providing for compensation for damages other than the admissions law adopting British law. However, the lawsuit of lawsuits was considered relatively undeveloped in the mid-19th century; the first American treatise on torts was published in the 1860s but the subject became very well-established when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote on this issue in the 1880s. Holmes's writings have been described as "the first serious attempt in the world of common law to provide for the alteration of both distinctive coherent and substantive domains", although Holmes's summary of the history of the lawsuit has been critically reviewed.
Modern developments
The lawsuit lawsuit for various jurisdictions has been developed independently. In the case of the United States, surveys of court lawyers show some modern developments, including strict liability for products based on Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, immune restrictions (eg, sovereign immunity, charity immunity), comparative omissions, wider rules to acknowledge evidence, increased damage to emotional distress, and toxic suits and class action suits. However, there are also reactions in terms of reform of the lawsuit, which in some cases have been beaten for violating the state constitution, and federal state laws.
Modern rape is heavily influenced by insurance and insurance laws, as most cases are settled through claims adjustments and not by courts, and are defended by insurance lawyers, with insurance policies, inner pockets, setting limits on possible payouts.
Maps Tort
Comparative law
In international comparisons of modern tort laws, the jurisdiction of common law under British tort laws has a fundamental difference from the jurisdiction of civil law, which may be based on the concept of Roman offense. Even among the countries of common law, there are significant differences. For example, in the UK the winner's legal fees are paid by the losers (British rule versus American rule of lawyer fees). Common law systems include United States lawsuit law, Australian lawsuit law, Canadian lawsuit law, Irish lawsuit law, and Scottish Delik Law. The Jewish law on rabbinic damages is another example although tort in Israeli law is technically similar to English law as it was imposed by the British Mandate of the Palestinian Authority in 1944 and came into force in 1947. There is a more tangible divide between the Commonwealth countries (especially UK, Canada and Australia) and the United States, although Canada may be more influenced by the United States because of its proximity.
The United States has been deemed very vulnerable to file a lawsuit albeit relative to other common law countries, although this perception has been criticized and debated. In 1987, classroom action was relatively rare outside the United States. In 1987, British law was less generous to plaintiffs in the following ways: contingent costing was restricted, British judges tried more decisions and stipulated damages than juries, relatively limited false lawsuits, relatively unavailable compensation, guarantees of restricted source rules, and strict liability, such as for product liability, are relatively unavailable. The UK welfare state, such as free health care through the National Health Service, can limit lawsuits. On the other hand, in 1987 the UK lacked workers' compensation systems and lawsuits because workplace injuries were relatively common and facilitated by unions, whereas in the United States the workers compensation insurance system prohibited lawsuits against employers despite lawsuits against all three parties the manufacturer did happen. The United States has also faced rising non-fault insurance for car liability in some states. In Britain, ombudsmen can also take cases that can be lawsuit lawsuits.
When comparing Australia and the United States, Australia's lawsuit law is a similar state law; However, there is a general federal law for torts unlike the United States. The influence of the United States on Australia is limited. The United States may have influenced Australia's strict development of responsibility for its products indirectly through EU-influenced laws, and by the 1990s classroom action was introduced in Australia. Australia has a universal health system and a 'welfare state' system that also limits lawsuits. In New Zealand, the no-limit accidental compensation system has restricted the development of personal injury torts.
Legal conflict
In certain cases, different jurisdiction laws may apply to a tort, in which case rules have been developed for which the law applies. This is especially true in the United States, where each of the 50 states may have different state laws, but can also occur in other states with federal, state or international federal systems.
Category
Torts can be categorized in several ways, with a very common division between negligent and deliberate lawsuits. Quasi-tation can be used to refer to a suit that is similar to but somewhat different from the typical trickery. Particularly in the United States, "collateral collateral" is used to refer to lawsuits in labor law such as deliberate punishment of emotional distress ("anger"); or wrongful dismissal; these evolving causes of action are disputed and overlap with the law of contract or other areas of law to some extent.
The default action in the lawsuit is negligence . Allegations of negligence provide the cause of actions that cause damage, or relief, in any case designed to protect legal rights, including personal safety, property, and, in some cases, intangible economic interests or non-economic interests such as negligent tort from emotional distress in the United States. The act of negligence includes claims that come mainly from car accidents and personal accident accidents of various types, including clinical negligence, employee negligence and so on. Cases of product liability, such as those involving warranties, may also be considered as acts of negligence or, in particular in the United States, may apply regardless of negligence or intent through strict liability.
Deliberate harassment includes, inter alia, specific lawsuits arising from occupation or land use. Impaired interference, for example, involves strict liability for neighbors who interfere with the enjoyment of others of their original property. Trespass allows owners to demand an entrance by someone (or its structure, like a jutting building) on ​​their land. Some deliberate complaints do not involve land. Examples include false imprisonment, unlawful detention or detention, and defamation (in some jurisdictions divided into slander and defamation), where false information is broadcast and damages the plaintiff's reputation.
In some cases, the development of lawsuits has spurred lawmakers to create alternative solutions to disputes. For example, in some areas, workers compensation legislation emerges as a legislative response to court decisions limiting the extent to which employees can sue their employers in relation to injuries suffered during the work. In other cases, legal commentary has led to the development of new causes of action beyond traditional general lawsuits. These are loosely grouped into quasi-torts or contention obligations.
Negligence
Negligence is a mistake arising from a breach of a duty of care that one person has to others from a reasonable person's perspective. Though credited as appearing in the United States at Brown v. Kendall , a recent Scottish case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, followed in the UK, brought England to the line with the United States and established 'tort of negligence' as opposed to negligence as component in certain actions. In Donoghue , Ny. Donoghue drank from an opaque bottle containing a decaying snail and claimed that it made her sick. He can not sue Mr Stevenson for damages for breach of contract and instead be sued for negligence. The majority determines that the definition of negligence can be divided into four parts of the component that the plaintiff must prove to determine negligence. The elements in determining responsibility for negligence are:
- Plaintier owes maintenance tasks through a special relationship (eg doctor-patient) or some other principle
- There is omissions or violations of the assignment
- Tortfeasor directly causes to injury [but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff will not get injured].
- Plaintiff suffers damage as a result of the violation
- The damage is not too distant ; there is a direct cause to indicate the violation that caused the damage
In certain cases, negligence can be assumed under the doctrine of the loquitur's
For example, in the business world, the auditor has an obligation to care for the company being audited - that the document created is a true and reliable representation of the company's financial position. However, according to Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v. Peat Marwick Hungerfords, the auditor does NOT assign maintenance tasks to third parties who rely on their reports. An exception is where auditors provide third parties with a private letter, explicitly declaring a third party can rely on a report for a particular purpose. In such a case, a private letter assigns a maintenance assignment.
The immediate cause
The nearest cause means you should be able to show that the loss is caused by the lawsuit you support. The defense may state that there is a prior cause or a substitute cause for interference. The general situation where the previous cause was a personal accident car accident, where the person injured the old injury. For example, someone who has a bad back injured behind in a car accident. Years later he was still in pain. He had to prove his pain was caused by a car accident, and not a natural progression from a previous problem with his back. The cause of the replacement intervention occurs immediately after the injury. For example, if after an accident the doctor working on you malpractices and injures you further, the defense may argue that it was not an accident, but an incompetent doctor who caused your injury. [1]
Deliberate harassment
Deliberate harassment is a deliberate act that can reasonably cause damage to a person, and who does so. Deliberate torts have several sub-categories:
- Torts against the person include attack, battery, false imprisonment, intentional suffering from emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic fault.
- The property claim involves a deliberate disruption with the plaintiff's (plaintiff's) property. Commonly known include offense to the ground, infringement into glassware (private property), and conversions.
A deliberate tort requires concrete action, some form of intent, and cause and effect. In many cases, the intention of being transferred, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up wounding others, will fulfill the purpose of the intent. Because it can be fulfilled as long as the defendant is a substantial factor in causing damage.
Legal damages
Lawsuits are the same as others, in that it imposes assignments on the private or public, but they are created by the legislature, not the courts. For example, Product Liability Guidelines The EU imposes strict liability for defective products that harm people; Such strict accountability is not unusual even though it is not necessarily a law.
As another example, in Britain the common legal liability of landowners for guests or intruders is replaced by the Tenants' Liability Act of 1957; a similar situation occurred in the State of California in the US where the rule of law common law set forth in Rowland v. Christian was amended by law 1985. Lawsuits also spread throughout workplace health and safety laws and health and safety in food. In some cases, federal or state laws may precede lawsuits, which are primarily discussed in connection with the US Preemption FDA; although action in the United States for medical equipment is preferred because Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. (2008), the action for medical drugs is not due to Wyeth v. Levine (2009).
Disorders
"Distractions" are traditionally used to describe dangerous activities or disturb others such as indecent behavior or waste piles. Distractions affect private individuals (personal disturbances) or the general public (public disorder). Plaintiffs may sue most acts that interfere with the use and enjoyment of their land. In UK law, whether the activity is an illegal interference depends on the region and whether the activity is "for the benefit of the Commonwealth", with richer areas that are subject to greater expectations of cleanliness and tranquility. The case of Jones v Powell (1629) provides an early example, in which one's professional paper is damaged by steam from a neighboring brewery. Although the outcome of the case is unclear, Whitelocke Court of King's Bench was noted to say that because the water supply in the area is contaminated, the disturbance can not be acted upon because "it is better that they should be spoiled than that." the commonwealth needs good liquor ".
In Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), strict liability was established for the dangerous escape of several dangers, including water, fire, or animals as long as the cause is not far away. At Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994), the chemicals from the factory seep through the floor to the water table, contaminating the waters of the East Anglia reservoir.
Defamation
Defamation tarnished a person's reputation; it has two variations, slander and slander . Slander uttered slander and slander printed or broadcast defamation. Both of them share the same features: make factual statements that have no evidence. Defamation does not affect or obstruct the submission of opinion, but occupies the same field as the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Associated with defamation in the US are acts for misuse of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. Misuse of malicious processes and prosecutions is often classified as a great demand as well.
Business series
Business torts (ie, economic torts) typically involve commercial transactions, and include torture with trade or contracts, fraud, harmful errors, and erroneous errors. A wrong misrepresentation is different from a contract case involving a false statement because there is no contract privacy; the lawsuit tends to involve a purely recoverable economic loss in the lawsuit. One criterion for determining whether an economic loss can be recovered is the doctrine of "foreseeability". The rules of economic loss are very confusing and applied inconsistently and began in 1965 from the California case involving strict liability for product defects; in 1986, the US Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of East River S.S. Corp v. Transamerica Deleval, Inc. . In 2010, the US state supreme court in Washington replaced the doctrine of economic loss with the "doctrine of independent duty".
Economic antitrust allegations have been somewhat undercut by modern competition law. However, in the United States, private parties are permitted under certain circumstances to prosecute anticompetitive practices, including under federal or state law or on the basis of ordinary lawlessness, which may be based on a Second Return from Torts Ã,§ 766. The federal law includes the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 followed by the Clayton Antitrust Act limiting the cartel and through the Federal Trade Commission governing mergers and acquisitions. In the European Union, articles 101 and 102 of the Agreement on the Functioning of the European Union apply but allow private actions to enforce antitrust laws being discussed.
Mistakenly mistaken as a tort where no contract privileges are disallowed in England by Derry v Peek [1889]; However, this position was canceled at Hedley Byrne v Heller in 1964 so that such action was allowed if a "special relationship" existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. US courts and intellectuals "pay lip-service" to Derry ; However, scholars like William Prosser argue that it was misinterpreted by a British court. Case Ultramares Corporation v. Touche (1932) limits the auditor's responsibility for identifying known audit beneficiaries and this rule was widely applied in the United States until the 1960s. The Restatement (Second) of Torts extends responsibility for "upcoming" users rather than specifically identifying "forecast" information users, dramatically expanding obligations and influencing professionals such as accountants, architects, lawyers, and surveyors. In 1989, most US jurisdictions followed the Ultramares approach or the Representative approach.
The allegations of fraud for inducement into the contract are a mistake in English law, but in practice have been replaced by acts under the 1967 Convergence Act. In the United States, there are similar offenses but have been substituted to some extent by contract law and pure. rules of economic loss. Historically (and to some extent today), erroneous fraud (but not negligent) involving damage to economic losses can be given under the "benefit-of-the-bargaining" rule (identical damage to contractual breakdown in contracts) to the plaintiff. the difference between the represented value and the actual value. Starting with Stiles v. White (1846) in Massachusetts, this rule is scattered throughout the country as a rule of majority with the rule of "out-of-pocket damage" as a minority rule. Although the damage under "benefit-of-bargain" is described as compensation, plaintiffs remain better than before the transaction. Because the economic loss rule will eliminate these benefits if applied strictly, there are exceptions to allow plaintiffs' errors if they are not related to the contract.
Liability, defense and repair
Indirect obligations can arise due to some involvement, especially through joint doctrine and some of the responsibilities and forms of secondary obligations. Liabilities may arise through corporate liability. Other concepts include the liability of market share.
Replacement responsibilities
In certain cases, a person may be responsible for their employees or children under agency law through superior respondeat doctrine. For example, if a store employee spills a cleaning fluid on the supermarket floor and the victim falls and sustains injuries, the plaintiff may be able to sue either the employee or the employer. There is sufficient academic debate as to whether representative responsibility is justified on a basis no better than finding a solvent defendant, or is it also based on an efficient theory of risk allocation.
Defense
Defense which successfully acquits the defendant from full or partial responsibility for damages. Regardless of the evidence that there is no offense of duty, there are three major defenses for torturous responsibilities.
Approvals and alerts
Typically, the victim can not hold another accountable if the victim is implicit or explicitly agrees to engage in risky activities. This is often summarized by the proverbial "volenti non-fit injuria" (Latin: "to the willing person, no injuries done" or "no injuries were made to the consenting person"). In many cases, those involved in risky activities will be required to sign a statement releasing the other party from liability.
For example, certain sports audiences are assumed to accept the risk of injury, such as hockey or baseball pieces that attack members of the audience. Warning by the defendant may also provide a defense depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances. This problem arises, for example, in the maintenance tasks that landowners possess for guests or offenses, known as colonial responsibility.
Comparative or contributory lags
If the victim has contributed to their own damage through negligent or irresponsible acts, the damage may be reduced or eliminated entirely. The English Case of Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) established this defense. In Britain, this "negligence contribution" becomes a partial defense, but in the United States, any fault by the victim completely removes any damage. This means that if the plaintiff is 1% innocent, the victim will lose the entire lawsuit. This is seen as unnecessary and is therefore transformed into a comparative negligence system in many countries; in 2007 negligence contributions exist only in some countries such as North Carolina and Maryland.
In comparative negligence, the victim's damage is reduced according to the error rate. Comparative negligence has been criticized for allowing plaintiffs who are 95% recklessly reckless to recover 5% of damage from defendants. Economists have further criticized the comparative omission as not encouraging precautionary measures under the calculus of negligence. In response, many countries now have a 50% rule in which plaintiffs get nothing if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible.
Illegality
If the plaintiff was involved in a breach at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the responsibility of the defendant. The legal proverb of ex turpi causa non oritur actio , Latin for "no right action arises from a despicable cause". So if a thief is verbally challenged by the property owner and suffers an injury when jumping from a second floor window to escape the worries, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though the injury will not be sustainable but to the property owner's intervention.
Defense and other immunities
Historically, immunity has been granted to governments under sovereign immunities and charitable organizations under immune immunity, although this has been eroded in the United States.
Various laws restrict responsibility when providing assistance to people in need; responsibility can arise from failure to help because of the task of saving.
Remedies
The main remedy against painful loss is compensation in damages or money. In a limited range of cases, the lawsuit will tolerate self-help, such as a reasonable power to expel intruders. This is a defense against battery tort. Furthermore, in case of a continuing lawsuit, or even where the danger is only threatened, the courts will sometimes give orders, as in the case of English Miller v Jackson (1977). This means an order, for something other than money by the court, such as holding a continuation or threat of danger. Normally the order will not impose a positive obligation on the plaintiffs, but some Australian jurisdictions may make orders for certain performance to ensure that the defendant performs their legal obligations, especially in relation to distractions.
Theory and reform
Academics and lawyers have identified conflicting objectives for the lawsuits of the law, to some degree reflected in the various types of damages afforded by the courts: compensation, compounded, and punished. The British expert, Glanville Williams, notes four basic possibilities in which different distinctions are addressed: relief, justice, deterrence and compensation.
From the late 1950s a group of law-oriented economists and economic-oriented lawyers known as law and economic scholars emphasized incentives and prevention, and identified tort goals as efficient distribution of risk. Ronald Coase, a key proponent, argues in the Social Cost Issues (1960) that tort goals should reflect as closely as possible the obligations on which transaction costs should be minimized.
Since the mid-twentieth century, calls for the reform of lawsuits have come from different perspectives. Some calls for reform emphasize the difficulties faced by potential claimants. For example, since not everyone who has an accident can find a solvent defendant to recover damages in court, P. S. Atiyah calls this situation a "lottery damage". As a result, in New Zealand, the government in the 1960s established a state-of-the-art compensation system for accidents. Similar proposals have been the subject of Command Papers in the UK and much of the academic debate.
In the US, specific reforms have limited the scope of the lawsuit law and available damages, such as limiting shared liability and some, collateral source rules, or limiting non-economic damage to emotional or punitive damages. This reform law is sometimes denied as unconstitutional under the state constitution by the state supreme court, with the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States may also be relevant. Theoretical and policy considerations are essential to restore responsibility for pure economic losses and public bodies.
Relationship to contract law
Torts are sometimes seen as the cause of actions not defined in other areas such as contract or fiduciary law. However, similar lawsuits and contracts in both cases involve a breach of duty, and in modern law, these tasks have been blurred and it may be unclear whether an act "sounds in tort or contract"; if both apply and different standards apply to each (such as restrictive laws), the court will determine which "gravamen" (the most applicable). Such circumstances involving professional negligence may involve both lawsuits and contracts. The choice may affect deadlines or damage, especially given that damage is usually relatively limited in case of a temporary contract in case of a non-economic damage suit such as pain and suffering can be given. Parental damage is relatively uncommon in contractual cases compared to cases of lawsuits. However, compensation for defective but insecure products is usually only available through contractual action through warranty laws.
In the UK, the plaintiff in the case of professional negligence has several options where the provisional law in commercial contract contract law is applicable; in an unusual case, intangible losses have been granted in legal contract cases.
The English case Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), adopted in the United States, broke the contract and damages damages from damage when the contract was made. In the United States, the pure economic loss rule was adopted to further prevent lawsuits of negligence in breach of contract cases. This "economic loss rule" was adopted by the United States Supreme Court of East River Steamship Corp. V Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986) and expanded across the country in a non-uniform way, causing confusion. Among other examples, bad faith insurance torts arise out of contractual relationships, and "collateral suits" such as false dismissals involving possible overlap with labor law contracts.
Overlap with criminal law
There is some overlap between the criminal law and the lawsuit. For example, in English law an attack is a crime and a tort (a form of offense to that person). A tort allows a person, usually a victim, to get a drug that serves their own purpose (eg by paying damages to someone injured in a car accident, or getting compensation to stop someone who is interfering with their business). Criminal action on the other hand is pursued not to find a solution to help someone - although criminal trials often have the power to provide such solutions - but to wipe out their freedoms on behalf of the state. This explains why detention is usually available as a punishment for serious crimes, but usually not for lawsuits. In the early common law, the distinction between crime and tort is no different.
The heavier penalties available in criminal law also mean that it requires a higher burden of proof to be discarded than the related suit. For example, in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, the jury was not convinced without a doubt that O. J. Simpson had committed a crime of murder; but in a civil trial, the jury in that case decided that there was enough evidence to meet the standard amount of greater evidence needed to prove the wrong death tort.
Many jurisdictions, notably the US, retain the element of punishment in redress, for example in anti-trust claims and consumer-related, making tort obscure boundaries with criminal acts. There are also situations where, especially if the defendant neglects a court order, the plaintiff may obtain compensation against the defendant, including imprisonment. Some lawsuits may have public elements - for example, public disruption - and sometimes action in a lawsuit will be brought by a public body. Also, while criminal law is very punitive, many jurisdictions have developed a form of monetary compensation or restitution that a criminal court may direct the accused to pay to the victim.
- Asbestos and law
See also
- Legal lawsuit outline
- Index of tort articles
- Torta Law Journal
Note
Bibliography
- Deakin, Johnston and Markesinis (2008). Marks & amp; The Law of Tort Deakin . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928246-3.
- Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant, Tort Law - Text, Case (2003) Issue 2. Oxford University Press, ISBNÃ, 0-19-926055-9
- van Gerven, W. et al. (eds) (2001). Cases, Material and Texts on National, Supranational and International Tort Corrations . Oxford: Hart Publishing. ISBN: 1-84113-139-3. CS1 maint: Additional text: author list (link)
Further reading
-
P.S.A. Pillai (2014). Torte's Law . ISBN: 978-93-5145-124-2. - Eoin Quill (2014). Hurdle in Ireland . ISBN 978-0-7171-5970-3.
- Charu Sharma (2017). Tort Obligations for Environmental Claims in India: Comparative View (1) . ISBN: 9788131250693.
External links
- Media associated with Tort law on Wikimedia Commons
- Quotes related to Torts at Wikiquote
- The dictionary definition of tort in Wiktionary
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments