‘Tort Law gives unjustified preference to corrective justice over distributive justice ‘ Critically evaluate this statement

0 Comment

Some scholars like Coleman (1994) have argued that the nature of the law of torts favors the corrective ends, whereas others like Konow (2003) as well as Wolf and Musselman (1990) argues that there is a need for the law of torts to strike a balance between the distributive and the corrective ends of the law. Not withstanding the foregoing controversial debates, the law of torts tends to lean its balance more towards the corrective end than the distributive ends. Tort Law: Basic Features The term tort is a word that is derived from Latin word tortum, to mean injustice or wrong. The law of tort therefore proceeds from recognition of the fact that some acts in society may be unjust and therefore needs to be corrected through the law. According to Coleman (1994), a tort may be defined to mean a wrongful act that causes injury to a person or property and the law allows for a claim by the injured party to be compensated for damages. Some of the generic labels that have been associated with torts include breach of duty although this is just on of the major concepts in the law of torts. The law of tort has no absolute formulas through which questions are resolved. Both the legal scholars and the judiciary have pointed out emphatically the facts that the law of torts is a complex process that is never mechanically applied nor is it static. rather it often depends on circumstances of the case, and that as time elapses, more and more torts get discovered (Blomqiuist [1990]. Koestler V. Pollard [199]). Patel [200]). The tortseeks to reflect the balance the society seeks to strike between competing values. The facts in the case in question determine the right decision. For instance, automobile drivers are made liable to the injuries that they cause as they carry out their duty but only if the injury results from their fault or negligence. On the other hand, manufactures take the liability of the injuries stemming from their defective products, the reasonable care they might have taken not withstanding. Most individual torts require that fault be shown on the defendant’s part. More often, the extent of the defendant’s fault will form the basis of the liability that the defendant bears to the plaintiff. This is the case with torts such as negligence, defamation, nuisance and trespass. However, within the law of torts there are also cases of strict liability torts where the defendant will not be required to prove fault on the part of the defendant. it will suffice for purposes of tortious remedies against the defendant that the plaintiff suffered damage and that the damage was occasioned by an action or omission of the defendant (strict liability torts).Generally, at common law, the strict liability torts are restricted to activities that are hazardous. There is also Liability for Defective Products Act, 1991 which creates strict liabilities on manufacturers with regard s to health sustained by consumers of their products. The principle function of the law of tort is to establish weather there is an offence and if there is to come up with a remedy. At common law, damages are the most widespread remedy. In such a judgment, the defendant is normally required to offer financial compensation to the