A Persuasive Paper for Business Law on Tort Law and Negligence

Introduction

Laws are developed to generate an orderly society through the creation of limitations with regard to behaviors and to guard the freedom of citizens. Laws usually exist in three different forms which include tort, contract, and criminal laws. Tort law refers to a civil immoral, while criminal law is wrong that is committed publicly and contract laws refer to a violation or a contract which is either written or oral. Tort law is a branch of privatized regulations that are involved with discriminating and tortious behaviors that lead to harm to another person. In that, the law mainly operates in solving conflicts amid parties that are engaged in differences without the judgment of any criminal activity. According to Smith, (2011) Tort law is grounded on the mutual concepts and understanding of the existing differences among people in their daily interactions. On the other hand, negligent torts are not intentional actions but generally refers to an individual who and fails to act reasonably to a person who they owe a duty to. Tort law and negligence are interconnected as the crime of negligence must have occurred and caused damages for the law to be applied. The assertion that tort law mainly entails dealing with civil wrongs based on the guiding moral principles in the United States has generated controversial debates in disregard. Tort law is effective in creating a safe environment but there are needs for laws immediate reforms to enhance legal justice while protecting morality.

Torts incorporate wrongdoings. In the past tort was widely recognized as a lawful classification within the appropriate classification which is regarded as private wrongs (Smith, 2011). However, in the contemporariness of the modern legal setting, tort cases mainly offers a perspective of the judge acting as the respondents of offenders who are obligated to the responsibility of ensuring that they do not engage in any violation. With respect to torts law, the individual who is engaged in tortious activities is regarded as tortfeasor and the one that is affected is the plaintiff. Tort law refers to legal provisions that govern wrongdoings. The affected person has the obligation to make claims to the incurred harms. In this context, the ruling that is provided by judges that are grounded in facts and actual damages that are incurred by the victim. Court's discourse on the establishment of whether the duties have been infringed (Goldberg and Zipursky, 2010). The substantial tort assertion is full of principles and concepts that communicate the thought of an individual wronging the other. Logically, based on the past reflections that generate the claim that tort law entails dealing with civil wrongs has been part of major controversy today, perhaps in disregard. The main cause of the issue is that the thought of conducting wrongs with obvious moral implications, and yet certain fundamental aspects of the tort and negligence law appears to be creating doubt on whether the law holds anything to do with wrongful deeds. In other words, tort law has minimal liability despite the fact that it creates much liability in the case that an economic loss, defamation or psychological harm has occurred.

It appears that most researchers have in different concepts and theories included tort law as the thought of wrongs rather than losses. However, on the other hand, there are those that hold that since the law mainly seeks to offer compensation to those that have suffered damages, it is a law of losses. In this notion, tort law is unique when compared to the criminal law based on its capability to cater for the incurred losses. Since the law mainly deals with wrong deeds the objective should be to subject punishment to those involved. Contrary tort law shifts damages since a loss of mainly established after proper grounds for holding the offender as morally accountable for the wrongs is found (Goldberg and Zipursky, 2010). More so, the kind of accountability that leads to tort responsibility is the moral obligation for the harm that an individual has incurred rather than the accountability for committing the wrong. In justifying the concept of corrective justice, the law holds that the wrongdoer is one that has created losses to another and conducted the act through strategies that lacks the application of the standard of moral norms. This is an adequate rationale for considering the loss of the offender’s moral accountability while the victim remains blameless (Goldberg and Zipursky, 2010). Based on this notion, it is evident that the loss responsibility lies with the offender and thus while the victim requires some compensations, the perpetrator gets legal punishment.

Despite the fact that tort law covers all the damages resulting in wrongs by the offenders who  fail to meet the moral standards in the society which in this case refers to acting negligently, it fails to cover, psychological, defamation, accidental or economic losses. The provision of compensation to the victims holds no inherent benefit since while the loss responsibility falls on the individual that caused it, no legal punishment is implemented. This view is justified, since the loss is accounted as being caused by the offender who participated in a wrongful act (Smith, 2011). This means that torts entails some form of moral wrongs that incorporates the lack of using the provided resources effectively. Tort law has the responsibility of creating an enabling surrounding for all those that are involved. The law achieves the duty by ensuring that those that causes harm to others take the liability for such wrongs (Goldberg and Zipursky, 2010). Through this deterrence is the main objective, as being responsible discourages most individuals from engaging in crimes.

Tort law entails accountability for wrongful acts. If harm has been subjected to another individual, the responsibility is grounded on the offender (Volokh, 2014). It means that tort law is a composition of different wrongs such as injuries, trespass and unjustified imprisonment. Since the law is a body of responsibility, it entails more than a moral subject as it seeks to promote equality and standardization. Tort law is viewed as the legal aspects that seeks to guard individual’s privacy. The advancement of technology has however violated this norm since information can be assessed without the knowledge of the owner (Volokh, 2014). Based on the composition of the law that seeks to establish the wrong committed and the moral basis to make it certain that the offenders accountable, the law creates needless lawsuits. Such instances usually creates an intense burden on the court in dealing with the cases for the damages to be compensated while guarding those that have been affected. The justifications of the deeds is based on the moral provisions. In that for an act that caused loss to be accounted as a wrong in tort law it must have failed to meet the moral provisions in general. However, within courts the legal justification is mainly incorporated which in turn affects the responsibility of the law by generating a more complex setting (Volokh, 2014). The effectiveness of the law is dependent not just on the resulting harm but also the fact that the actor failed to adhere to certain moral standards thus creating a violation.

Negligence is found in tort law and within the element the obligation of care is presents which assists in making informed choices on whether compensation is to be enacted. The theory of negligence is a challenging one based on its complexity which is eased by its division. In that for negligence to be have taken place then one must have owed a care responsibility to the victim, violated the principle and causes losses to the claimant that results from the neglect and breaching of the care obligation (Smith, 2011). Negligent torts represent the most common torts. Negligent torts does not involve the intentional actions but rather entails an individual who has failed to act realistically towards an individual that they owed care to. The negligent deed that exists in certain torts results in personal or financial damages. In this composition, since the claimant has the burden of fully proving that the action of the offender resulted in harm, in the case when a psychological harm has been caused it is not only challenging to prove but it is close to impossible. In that, the law is more suitable for an observable loss while it offers less efficiency in the determination of certain liabilities. For instance if an individual suffers from an accident injury that was caused by thoughtless driving then there is a burden since they have to fully justify the argument that it was the recklessness of the driver that resulted in the harm (Raupp, 2011).

Negligence in general deals with, compensating individual’s for the suffered harm that results from an individual’s inattentiveness to other people (Raz, 2010). However, the law does not offer a solution to those that have been affected. While tort law seeks to establish the conducted wrong the law comes in to cater for the compensation aspect of the existing loss. The law is founded on the Duty of Care (Raz, 2010). Based on the neighbor provision one must adopt reasonable care standards in ensuring that actions which might be viewed to result in harm are omitted. This does not necessarily imply that good care is owed to those that lives close but all those that might be indirectly or unswervingly affected impacted by the actions. In other words, the law holds that one must contemplate in full prior to acting when seeking to address certain issues. The significance of these principle within the tort law can best be established as the extension of the care responsibility that works to ensure that negligence which might result in bodily, economic loss and so on is deterred.

Tort law and negligence is limited with regard to compensation or subjecting the loss liability to the offender when an economic or personal injury is not the resulting damage. The moral rather than the legal foundation of the laws further the problem (Smith, 2011). Instead of dealing with the losses or implications and providing legal support to the affected person the law mainly deals with establishing the moral wrongs created and those that are accountable. The controversy of the law is based on the notion that it is a wrong law that mainly seeks to establish the act that resulted in the harm and not losses. This can be justified by the fact that negligence law has the responsibility of compensating the harm that results from an individual making reasonable choices prior to acting to avoid the occurrence of harm. The laws entail establishing the moral and legal justification of the loss experienced as well as the most appropriate compensation for the case (Smith, 2011). Despite the broad application of the law with reference to torts certain wrongs are not covered fully and the liability is not comprehensive. Negligence law has, however, developed over time to covering cases that deal with conflicts between individuals even without the presence of a contract while following a feasible and financial stand to ensure that measures are adopted to avoid damages.

The negligence tort refers to a legal violation which is mainly determined by the moral provisions for the loss that is obtained by an individual at the care of a person who negligent the standards for proper care, in omitting what would sensibly be called the foreseeable threat (Raz, 2010). Morally speaking, some acts such as pushing an individual would lead to a fall which can be foreseen by any rational person and this would cause physical harm or even doubt. Negligent therefore involves knowing that the act would lead to such losses and still doing nothing to avoid. In most instances there are some predetermined associations between persons such as the relationship between a doctor and the respective patient. In this case, the doctor has the obligation of care which involves ensuring that the health needs of the person are addressed without causing harm. Thus, if the doctor violates the principle then negligence and tort are both present. Based on tort law, the doctor, in the case if the offender who needs to take accountability for the loss so that the patient can be compensated. However, the contractual connection is not a necessity for the modern law which acknowledges that the neighbor principle covers more than relationship. In that, in the community one has the unstated responsibility of acting in a manner that not only offers benefits to self but also by noting resulting in the suffering of others (Raz, 2010). Thus if the duty is violated, it then means that a negligence tort has resulted and those affected by the wrong should be compensated.

Tort law is argued to be a moral wrong for several reasons. To begin with, torts encompasses moral rather than legal wrongs because the justification does not involve violating the provisions of the constitution but ethical norms (Volokh, 2014). For the rational individual contemplating about an act as desirable or negative is the norm and this should be the practice that assists one in omitting any wrongs. The ability to distinguish amid the right and wrong thing is more of a moral principle that seeks to guide individual’s behaviors as required by law for individuals to coexist peacefully (Smith, 2011). However, for distinct cases or ideas, torts are however categorized as legal wrongs. However, in acting in the manner, the judiciaries have felt the compellation to concede that the alternative normally clears the ordinary aspect of that torts and wrongs are equal. This, therefore, creates a moral controversy.  The second issue is generated by the fact that torts create a specified form of response from the legal ground. This is the subjection of liability in the instance when the private claimant effectively proves the assertion against the actor. The thought that tort law deals particularly with moral wrongs has caused troubling thoughts to most individuals based on the expectation that the law would be used differently within the legal setting.

Tort laws fail to respond to the incorporated wrongs through subjecting the liability through legal punishment to the offer such as sentencing. In this regard tort law normally respond by drawing the losses incurred by the plaintiff as subjected by the offender through the unreasonable act to the wrongdoer as a form of ending the conflict (Volokh, 2014). The absence of the existing punishment with the extensive dominance of the financial responsibility for the acquired harm leads to the destruction of the argument that tort entails legal wrongs. The notion is perceived as useless and unjustified due to the absence of coherence in dealing with different civil wrongs. The other reason that justifies torts are moral wrongs is that the law is mainly described based on an injury incorporated strategy. Any offender is not classified as guilty of committing a tort unless the possible damaging act has resulted in harm. Based on this perception, it is evident that the description is borrowed from the morality standards (Smith, 2011). The law, therefore, acts in assessing an individual’s moral conduct rather than the outcome of the act. In this case, it becomes evident that since torts cannot be justified without a moral violation this makes them moral wrongs. In addition, the problem that the law seeks to solve is that of the conduct that resulted in the stated outcome. This shows that torts are mainly based on the establishment of wrongs that one commits due to being negligent of the care responsibility or negligence thus leading to harm to the claimant.

In preventing the occurrence of reimbursements on others, as tort law has shown might utilize different styles. Potential damages can be lowered by investing more in increased care. This notion is provided by the negligence law which encourages individuals to account for the losses that might result from a given action. For instance, drivers are necessitated to focus on slow driving because speed is bound to lead to accidents, injuries and lives losses (Gilo and Ehud, 2009). In a moral context, individuals should consider if their actions only seek to offer personalized benefits while harming others. Since every individual is entitled to caring for others then the decisions should be well thought and organized.

Conclusion

The objective of tort law is creating an enabling environment for individuals to live in. a reform of the la is necessary in enhancing legal justice. The law mainly grounded in solving conflicts that arise from individual’s daily interactions. A tort is a violation of the already set legal or moral standards which is classified as a wrong. On the other hand, the negligence tort is mainly incurred by an individual due to the improper actions of another who does not assess any foreseeable threats. The obligation of offering care to others is the major determinant of whether there was a committed wrong that led to the damages. Acting in negligence implies that certain options were present but the individual settled for the alternative that would cause losses. Tort law creates a moral controversy because despite the fact that it seeks to establish wrongs and subjecting the responsibility to the offender it fails to implement any form of punishment. It is worth noting that even though those that are accountable for the wrongs are held accountable finically the law does not provide any legal justice by failing to legally rather than financially punishing individuals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Gilo, David, and Ehud Guttel. (2009)."Negligence and Insufficient Activity: The Missing Paradigm in Torts." Michigan Law Review, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 277-321, ProQuest Central. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/docview/201149414?accountid=11302.

Goldberg, John C. P., and Benjamin C. Zipursky. (2010). “Torts as Wrongs." Texas Law Review, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 917-986, ProQuest Central. Retrieved From: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/docview/203719457?accountid=11302.

Raupp, Michael T. (2011). "The Multiplication of Indivisible Injury*." Texas Law Review, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 259-282, ProQuest Central. Retrieved From: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/docview/916010900?accountid=11302.

Raz, J. (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqq002

Smith E. Henry. (2011). Modularity and Morality in the Law of Torts (October 8, 2011). Journal of Tort Law, Vol. 4, No. 2. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1940943

Volokh, Eugene. (2014). "Tort Law vs. Privacy." Columbia Law Review, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 879-948, ProQuest Central. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/docview/1812228531?accountid=11302.