“a Satisfactory Justification for Strict Liability in Tort Law Has Yet to Be Found.”

In: Other Topics

Submitted By fvck
Words 3156
Pages 13
“A satisfactory justification for strict liability in tort law has yet to be found.”
It is generally recognised that being responsible at law or in ordinary life are very different concepts: one is based on blame while the other focuses on fault. This imbalance is embedded in the tension between the two bases of liability recognised in the law of torts. On the one hand, as stressed in Hoffman v Jones, ‘the most equitable result that can ever be reached by a court is the equation of liability with fault’. Courts have energetically defended the view that fault is crucial in establishing responsibility. On the other hand, the same jurisdictions have operated a shift since Rylands v Fletcher from this doctrinal claim to adopt a strict liability standard in particular circumstances. Despite its appearance in statutes, many claim that a satisfactory justification for strict liability in tort law has yet to be found.
This essay will nevertheless argue that this stand is unsupported and untrue: it is nonsensical to call for one unique explanation for this area of the law. The law on strict liability responds to a social demand which should not be reduced to one ‘metatheory’. The first two parts of this essay will be dedicated to the analysis the ‘social and economic benefits’ of strict liability mentioned in Chavez v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. We shall then argue that these justifications are best understood when interrelated with a broader moral justification.

I] Social justifications: distributive justice and social harmony
The main aim of the law of torts is to compensate victims for the damage they suffer. Strict liability plays a very key role in respect of this. It is important to note that strict liability is generally imposed upon dangerous activities, such as nuclear power production, which society is reluctant to accept.
According to the ‘deterrence…...

Similar Documents

The Position of the Rescuer and Good Samaritan Liability in Irish Tort Law

...Law of Torts Assignment draft This paper shall examine the current position of the Rescuer under Irish law, and critically examine how this position has developed under common law and statutes. This development can draw many of its origins from the 2009 Law Reform Commission consultation paper which essentially outlined a framework for the drafting of legislation. Furthermore analysing case law and statue from our jurisdiction and abroad, which was applied in the only real substantive case in Ireland to date, O’Neill v Dunnes Stores Ltd To determine the position of the rescuer in Ireland several factors were considered by the LRC such as the moral versus legal question of a duty to intervene, how intervention affects society and with an increasing level of litigation in modern Ireland, how the courts should view subsequent cases for and against Good Samaritans and Voluntary organisations. LRC Consultation Paper The recognition and protection of persons providing voluntary assistance has been addressed by the LRC Consultation Paper on Civil Liability of Good Samaritans and Volunteers, which proposes the introduction of a statute restricting the liability of such persons who intervene as rescuers. The recommendations in the paper essentially aimed to clarify the confusing position of rescuers in Ireland through the implementation of statute. Section 5.01 of the recommendations states “The Commission recommends that there should be no reform of the law to impose a......

Words: 2468 - Pages: 10

Torts Law Exam Notes

...NEGIGENCE In the 1928 edition of Bevan on Negligence stated that negligence is “it has to deal……with duties as they appear when the normal standard of performance is not attained…considering defaults in conduct, and only in the second place with the adequate discharge of obligations”. 1. DUTY OF CARE Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, the approach to determine a duty of care is to identify the “salient features” that combine to constitute a sufficiently close relationship to give rise to a duty of care. Reasonably foreseeable: - It is reasonably foreseeable that any carelessness on the part of the defendant could harm the plaintiff. Did the defendant’s act impart harm “that you could reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”? (Donoghue v Stevenson). Incremental Approach: 1. type of relationship between the parties; a) the vulnerability of the plantiff, b) degree of control of defendant, c) special knowledge of the defendant of the plaintiff’s situation. 2. the type of loss or injury (physical, psychiatric, economic) 3. policy and; 4. physical, casual and circumstantial proximity may still be used (Kirby, Modbury triangle shopping centre pty ltd v Anzil) “proximity is the best notion yet devised by the law to delineate the relationship of negibour” Proximity test involves a notion of nearness in the relationship between the parties. as a principle stated in Rylands v Flectcher, “identifying the categories of case…rather than a test for determining...

Words: 11108 - Pages: 45

Tort Law

...such situations? The tort of negligence is defined as the breach of a legal duty to take care resulting in damage to claimant which was not desired by the defendant. According to Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co it is the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”. But the point is that the Law of negligence has no statutory basis. It has developed through a huge number of cases. This means that whenever considering a duty of care exists in any given situation the courts have flexibility to take public policy consideration into account and steer the evolution of the tort of negligence accordingly. This flexibility has also allowed to protect certain classes of defendant from liability in negligence. The traditional approach adopted by the courts has been to refuse an action against the police either on policy grounds or because there is no proximity between the injured person and the police agent. Since the implementation of the Human Right Act 1998 it is possible to bring a direct action under the legislation against the police if they are in breach of one of the relevant article. For instance an action under article 2 (right to life) might be brought by the estate or dependants of a person who has died as a result of the alleged breach. Today, immunity is not as strict as the case seems to......

Words: 1591 - Pages: 7

Law of Tort...Defamation

...reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make then shun or avoid him. [1]  The tort of defamation protects a person’s interest in his reputation. If the defendant had made an untrue statement, or what amounts to a statement, which is defamatory of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a right of action against him unless the defendant can establish one of the special defenses available to an action for defamation. Since the tort of defamation protects the plaintiff’s reputation, and since reputation depends on what other people think of the plaintiff, the publication of the statement by the defendant to persons other than the plaintiff himself is an essential part of the tort –the purpose of the tort is not to protect the injured the feelings of the plaintiff. The tort goes beyond protecting their mere personal reputation of the plaintiff and extends to the protection of the reputation of his commercial and business undertakings. The rules of the tort represent an attempt to strike a balance between two important and often competing interests, the public interest in freedom of speech and the private interest in marinating one’s reputation. The difficulty of achieving this balance is perhaps indicated by the fact that, though liability for a defamatory statement is strict and substantial damages might be recovered from the one making the defamatory statement, a large variety of defenses exist for the one who......

Words: 2909 - Pages: 12

Tort Law

...between ‘fault liability’ and ‘strict liability’: four ideal types of liability in tort law 1. Are the notions of fault and strict liability misleading? • two notions should be considered as they will be applied all along the four types of liability: - fault (as in fault liability) ( liability for one’s own faults. - risk (or strict liability) ( accountability, based on criteria other than individual fault, for the consequences resulting from an unlawful/illegal act. Four ideal types • a) Individual liability for one’s own faults ▪ the basis for this type of liability lies in the conduct of the person held liable. ( this deserves the qualification ‘fault liability’. ▪ article 6:162 BW is the legal basis for the duty to pay damages where the conduct of a person is qualified as wrongful. • b) Individual liability without blameworthiness ▪ accountability is required. ( elements of fault, as wrongful conduct provides the foundation but also elements of strict liability, since there may be no grounds for apportioning blame. ▪ article 6:162 BW as well as article 6:165 BW may provide some legal basis. • c) Liability for damage caused by others (vicarious liability) ▪ this is a form of strict liability, insofar as there is strict responsibility for the fault of others. ▪ Articles 6:169, 6:170, 6:171 and 6:172 BW provide some legal bases for this form of liability. • d)......

Words: 986 - Pages: 4

Strict Liability

...Strict Liability Strict liability is basically being guilty of something when you didn’t set out to intentionally cause harm to someone. According to Samaha, “it is not necessary for mens rea to be present, in other words you do not have to have a guilty mind to be guilty of strict liability (Samaha, 2011).” Due to strict liability you can be found guilty of a crime when you did not purposely participate in any criminal act. The problem with strict liability is that due to others actions you can be guilty of something you would have never voluntarily participated in. According to Cornell, “crimes related to possession of property and statutory rape charges are big areas of concern in criminal law strict liability charges (Strict Liability).” Can you imagine if you were a guy that was 25 and you met a girl that told you she was 19 and you started dating her? During your relationship you had consensual sexual relations with the girl on multiple occasions, and then the police show up at your door with a warrant for your arrest. It seems the girl’s parents have found out about your relationship with their daughter and they are having you charged with statutory rape because their daughter is only 16 years old. In the state of Florida, “someone that is at least the age of 16 but is not yet 18 years old can in no way consent to participating in any type of sexual activity if the other participate is aged 24 or older (Statutory Rape).” In today’s world it is not......

Words: 727 - Pages: 3

Tort Law

...Contents TORT: 3 Intentional Tort: 3 Strict Liability: 3 Negligence: 4 Duty of care: 4 Breach of Duty: 5 Causation: 6 Vicarious Liability: 8 Reference: 12 LO 3 Understanding the principles of liability in negligence in business activities. TORT: The liability of the violation of a fixed law, law arises primarily; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is capable of redress by action unliquidated damages. This is a civil wrong, in the sense that it is committed against an individual, not the State. The essence of tort law is that a person has certain interests that are protected by law. These interests can be protected by a court granting a sum of money, known as damages. There are increasingly limited circumstances where the victim of a tort may avail himself of self-help. Types of Tort: There are basically three types of tort: 1. Intentional Tort 2. Strict Liability 3. Negligence Intentional Tort: It is a civil offense which occurs when the wrongdoer intentionally engages in conduct that results in damages to another. Hitting another person in a fight is an intentional act that would be the tort of battery. Accidentally hit a person would not be an intentional tort because it had no intention of attacking the person. Strict Liability: Sometimes called as absolute liability, it is the lawful responsibility for any damages or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault. It has been......

Words: 2880 - Pages: 12

Tort Law in Construction

...(119324) Yeow Jun Heng (119383) Submitted to : Date : 1st December 2014 Content Introduction- Tort Law…………………………………………..................................3 Trespass……………………………………………………………………………..4-6 Nuisance…………………………………………………………………………....7-12 Negligence………………………………………………………………………..13-14 Distinguishing nuisance and trespassing to land……………………………………15 Distinguishing nuisance and negligence…………………………………………16-17 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………18 Reference…………………………………………………………………………......19 INTRODUCTION Tort Law Tort law is a body of rights, obligations and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others. The person who sustains injury or suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the defendant or tortfeasor. Tort denotes a breach of duty imposed by law. The nature of the duty is to act as a reasonable person exercising reasonable diligence. Tort exceeds the obligation of a party under contract. The duty could be to the other party in a contractual relationship, as well as to any third party who, it is reasonably foreseeable, would get affected by the actions of a persons. There are three constituents of tort: 1. There must be a wrongful act committed by a person. 2. The wrongful act must......

Words: 4233 - Pages: 17

Tort Law

...methods like giving relaxant medicine to the patient and so that the patient has a serious problem. According to the team opinion doctor must use relaxant drug to the patient for to avoid the critical condition of the patient that is risk of death. The patient argued particularly on doctor’s treatment for his mental illness. Doctor was in violating of his service by not implement the proper relaxants medicine. The above statement shows that there is negligence in duty. The doctor must not in violate of duty of his service that is as a medical professional is not guilty of negligence. If he has acted in accordance with his service and with a proper responsible medical person experience is a special art. In this aspect the doctor is not a negligent. 2. Tort law Tort law covers in various areas like a claims of passenger insured in a road accident, a patient issue by doctor negligence. People arrested by police wrongly, and landowner land has been trespassed on. The tort law comes when there is a violation of general responsible duty fixed by civil law . Normally tort law is committed and allows the victim to claim towards financial due to damage of this personal so that it is a compensate for the commission of the tort. Basically the Tort Law involves violation of the duty that is fixed by the law. According to the above Bolam medical case as I mentioned above will comes under this law because the doctor negligence due to violating of his duty and......

Words: 2334 - Pages: 10

A Comparison Between Strict and Absolute Liability

...COMPARISON BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY THE CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY There are many activities which are so dangerous that they constitute constant danger to person and property to others. The law may deal with them in two ways. It may prohibit them altogether. It may allow them to be carried on for the sake of social utility but only in accordance with statutory provisions laying down safety measures and providing for sanctions for non-compliance through the doctrine of strict liability. The undertakers of the activities have to compensate for the damage caused irrespective of any carelessness on their part. The basis of liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of the activities. In this aspect, the principle of strict liability resembles negligence which is also based on foreseeable harm. But the difference lies in that the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions and so if the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable except possibly in those cases where he should have closed down the undertaking. Such a consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions. The rationale behind strict liability is that the activities coming within its fold are those entailing extraordinary risk to others, either......

Words: 4576 - Pages: 19

The Strict Liability Theory

...The Strict Liability Theory Introduction Strict Liability in simplistic terms can imply an individual or company being liable for their deeds, conducts and outcomes that result in damages to others. A personal complaint of injury for a strict liability case is not as a consequence of a foreplanned action or careless deed (Boatright, 2012). The respondent's action should have triggered strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. In fact, one cannot understand what strict liability in the criminal law means, in the same token understand why it is considered unorthodox and morally dyslogistic. The respondent's responsibility and blameworthiness, or mental fault should be evaluated and, more particularly, the usual relevance of a respondent's mistakes in determining this error. Furthermore, strict liability is a form of responsibility that may occur in either a criminal or a civil context. Equally important to note, strict liability causes an individual to legally answerable for the loss and damage that his or her actions caused because of his or her deeds of omissions irrespective of incrimination. For strict liability to be induced and used in a lawsuit, proving fault or negligence is not the main desire but rather showing the danger to the complainant (Martin, 2014). Strict liability flows not from carelessness, but from the v option to conduct the activity at all. Strict liability does not base on a fault in the time-honored sense of the term, but on the......

Words: 3139 - Pages: 13

Tort and Liability

...greatly or be forced to close (Business Regulation Simulation, 2009). It is important to identify, manage, and correct torts and regulatory risks for Alumina, Inc. so legal issues do not arise in the future. Alumina, Inc. is a $4 billion dollar USA-based industry leader in Aluminum making. They operated in eight countries around the world. The US accounts for seventy percent of its sales. Their business interests are in: automotive components, manufacturer of packaging materials, and aluminum smelting. Alumina falls under jurisdiction of Region 6 of the EPA. A tort is the French word for a “wrong.” The law provides remedies to persons and businesses that are injured by the tortuous actions of others (Cheesman, 2010). Kelly Bates claims Alumina did not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) legal limit of producing PHA. The drinking water in Lake Dira was found to be unsafe, which caused leukemia in her 10 year old daughter. The plaintiff has filed a million dollar personal injury lawsuit against Alumina to recover punitive damages (Business Regulation Simulation, 2009). Two of the possible tort violations in this simulation are negligence and liability. The potential for negligence in this case must be proven to contain breach of duty and duty of care. The liability tort must prove failure to protect and failure to warn. Alumina, Inc. has a clean record in compliance issues except the violation that took place five years ago resulting in......

Words: 300 - Pages: 2

Tort Law

...QUESTION. “The law tampers with the But for test of causation as its peril.” -Lord Brown; Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2011) The Bust for test of causation is said to be fraught with difficulties. How has the law developed to overcome these difficulties? INTRODUCTION Negligence in the law of tort is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably straight person would exercise in such like circumstances. In tort law, this area of negligence involves harm caused by carelessness and not by intention. The tort of negligence structures a standout amongst the most element and quickly changing zones of obligation in the present day law. Its rise in the 20th century shows the pressure of the social and economic changes on the traditional ways of legal redress for interference with protected interests. The reasonable structure of carelessness is very adaptable and fit for general application. These components have permitted the courts to use the tort in the setting of novel cases for pay. On the other hand, the development of carelessness has not supported the extension of risk and throughout the years, courts have been putting a few limitations on this degree. The tort of carelessness does not right now appear to be set upon some foreordained way of growth as it once had all the earmarks of being. The modern history of tort law started with the groundbreaking judgment of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson where Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend...

Words: 4638 - Pages: 19

Tort Law

...Torts Assignment PART 1 1) Does Autumn Bay High owe a duty of care to Persephone and Aphrodite? Consider the common law as well as any impact that the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) may have on the common law. The main considerations that have to be taken into account when deciding whether Autumn Bay High owed a duty of care to Persephone and Aphrodite are the reasonable foreseeability of nervous shock and whether their duty of care was non-delegable. Under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) “the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff if they ought to have foreseen that a person of normal fortitude might, in the circumstances of the case, suffer a recognized psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken”. It has been established through Tame v New South Wales & Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited[1] that reasonable foreseeability of mental harm is a precondition of the existence of a duty of care. Taking the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) into account, the fact that the school is taking its students on a ski trip already establishes a general duty of care. It is reasonably foreseeable that such an activity poses the possibility of serious injuries if adequate supervision is not provided. In addition to this, it is not fanciful or far-fetched that witnessing a horrific physical injury to a fellow student can cause sudden shock and consequential mental harm to a person. While Aphrodite witnesses the actual accident, and......

Words: 3481 - Pages: 14

Strict Liability

...Publications College of Law 1-1-1987 Strict Liability for Chattel Leasing Richard C. Ausness University of Kentucky College of Law, rausness@uky.edu Recommended Citation Richard C. Ausness, Strict Liability for Chattel Leasing, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 273 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. ARTICLES S TRICT LIABILITY F OR C HATTEL L EASINGt R ichard C. Ausness* Leasing has become an increasingly popular substitute f or outright purchases as a means o f acquiring products f or use. Few courts a nd commentators, however, have addressed the question o f whether the principles o f strict products liability which apply to sellers also apply to lessors. I n this Article, Professor Ausness reviews the historical basisfor imposing strict liability in tort on sellers a nd applies these rationales to five basic kinds o f lease transactions. H e concludes that strict liability should not apply when a product defect arises after the leased product is placed in the hands o f the lessee (as contrasted with the more typical case o f " manufacturing defects" which arise when the product is manufactured), nor when the leased product is a fixture attached to real property. I n such cases, the lessor should be held to a negligence standard o f liability. However,......

Words: 4390 - Pages: 18