A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
'blame' or 'fault') were paid to the king or holder of a court for disturbances of public order, while the fine of weregild was imposed on those who committed murder with the intention of preventing blood feuds.
Although the details of its exact origin are unclear, it became popular in royal courts so that in the 1250s the writ of trespass was created and made de cursu (available by right, not fee); however, it was restricted to interference with land and forcible breaches of the king's peace.
There is considerable academic debate about whether vicarious liability is justified on no better basis than the search for a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory of efficient risk allocation.
[14] While, in England and many other common law jurisdictions, this precedent is used to impose strict liability on certain areas of nuisance law[15] and is strictly "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land" under which "damages for personal injuries are not recoverable",[16] Indian courts have developed this rule into a distinct principle of absolute liability, where an enterprise is absolutely liable, without exceptions, to compensate everyone affected by any accident resulting from the operation of hazardous activity.
Originally his proposal was the gradual abolition of tort actions, and its replacement with schemes like those for industrial injuries to cover for all illness, disability and disease, whether caused by people or nature.
Although the outcome of this case is unclear,[32] Whitelocke of the Court of the King's Bench is recorded as saying that since the water supply in area was already contaminated, the nuisance was not actionable as it is "better that they should be spoiled than that the commonwealth stand in need of good liquor".
[34] Economic torts[l] typically involve commercial transactions, and include tortious interference with trade or contract, fraud, injurious falsehood, and negligent misrepresentation.
[40] The case of Ultramares Corporation v. Touche (1932) limited the liability of an auditor to known identified beneficiaries of the audit and this rule was widely applied in the United States until the 1960s.
Compensation by way of damages is typically the default remedy available to plaintiffs, with injunctions and specific performance being relatively rare in tort law cases.
The primary drawbacks of this are that, on one hand, it creates the possibility that a plaintiff filing suit in good faith may not find enough evidence to succeed and incur legal expenses driven upward due to the cost of discovery; and, on the other hand, that it enables plaintiffs arguing in bad faith to initiate frivolous tort lawsuits and coerce defendants into agreeing to legal settlements in otherwise unmeritorious actions.
Grounds of justification may be described as circumstances which occur typically or regularly in practice, and which indicate conclusively that interference with a person's legally protected interests is reasonable and therefore lawful.
In cases of necessity and private defence, the question is this: Under which circumstances would the legal convictions of the community consider it reasonable to inflict harm to prevent it?
[82] Tort liability in the Republic of China also extends to the violation of certain non-pecuniary interests under article 195 which provides for reasonable compensation in the case of damage to the body, health, reputation, liberty, credit, privacy, or chastity of another, or to another's personality in a severe way.
Liability for culpable injustice, the default position in German tort law, is where an individual directly violates another person's legal interest or absolute right either intentionally or negligently.
In terms of tort liability, the BGB represents a school of legal jurisprudence – the pandectists – heavily shaped by 19th century classical liberalism and, accordingly, places great emphasis on minimising impairment to individual freedom of action.
Nevertheless, Boris Starck departs from the German model by raising the protection of physical integrity by a notch, believing that the only breach here generates a right to compensation.
[95] Article 709 of the Civil Code states: "A person who has intentionally or negligently infringed any right of others, or legally protected interest of others, shall be liable to compensate any damages resulting in consequence.
[96][100] In Japan in 1986, fewer than 1% of automobile accidents involving death or an injury resulted in litigation, compared to 21.5% in the United States, a difference Tanase argues can be attributed to the availability of non-litigious methods of assessing fault, advising victims, determining compensation, and ensuring payment.
The Japanese judiciary also works hard at developing clear, detailed rules that guarantee virtually automatic, predictable, moderate compensation for most accident victims.
In the United States in the late 1980s, according to two big studies of motor vehicle accident tort claims (not just lawsuits), payments to lawyers equaled 47% of the total personal injury benefits paid by insurers.
For instance, the common law doctrine of comparative negligence is codified in article 2179, providing for compensation to be reduced in proportion with the plaintiff's own fault for the damage they incurred.
[125] In special cases, a court may choose to award nominal damages under article 2221 if it finds that, although it is unnecessary to compensate the plaintiff, it is nevertheless desirable to "vindicate" or "recognise" the violation of their right.
[136] Title V of the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand (CCT) establishes the principles of Thai tort law, with section 420 enshrining the basic doctrine that:[137] A person who, willfully or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health, liberty, property or any right of another person, is said to commit a wrongful act and is bound to make compensation therefore.This is analogous to Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code which establishes three criteria for tort liability:[96] negligence or intentionality on the part of the tortfeasor, infringement of some legally recognised right[aa] and a causal link between the tortfeasor's action and the infringement in question.
[137] While the burden of proof under Thai tort law is on the plaintiff by default, section 422 of the CCT provides that an individual who infringes "a statutory provision intended for the protection of others" is presumed to be liable.
[141] Article 288 of the TFEU, however, concedes that a directive 'shall be binding as to the result to be achieved, upon each member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to national authorities the choice of form and methods'.
The English courts must apply wider international tests and respect any remedies available under the "Applicable Law" or lex causae including any rules on who may claim (e.g. whether a personal representative may claim for a fatal accident) and who the relevant defendant may be (i.e. the English court would have to apply the applicable law's rules on vicarious liability or the identity of an "occupier" of land).
Under Article 3 of the proposed Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (22 July 2003), there would be a general presumption that the lex loci delicti will apply subject to either: an exception in Paragraph 2 for the application of the law to any common habitual residence between the parties, or an exception in Paragraph 3 for cases in which "the non-contractual obligation is manifestly more closely connected with another country.
[170] Regulation of contingent fees; as well as rules regarding barratry, champerty and maintenance, or litigation funding more generally; is another aspect of procedural policies and reforms designed to reduce the number of cases filed in civil court.
[175] This "economic loss rule" was adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States East River Steamship Corp V Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986) and expanded across the country in a non-uniform manner, leading to confusion.