Dear Readers,
The last post of this series quickly glanced at the definition of the law itself and a very brief look at criminal law. As this blog evolves and my writing improves I hope to try out a few different writing styles before settling on the most comfortable one.
What this means for you is that you might see some posts that cover more information than others, at least until I manage to find that perfect median between boring you to death and informing you. This post will cover only one type of law, as opposed to multiples. I would greatly appreciate any comments about how much information you guy are comfortable reading each post.
Torts Law
Tort is a funny word so it shouldn’t be a surprise that it comes from the Latin and it translates to “wrong”. Last post we discussed that criminal law is when the government prosecutes an individual for an action that is classified as a crime. The remedy that the prosecution seeks is punishment of an individual by taking away their fundamental rights of freedom. In laymen terms this means that if you break the law, you gotta do time until you have paid your debt to society. While paying society back is fine and dandy, what happens to the individuals who were affected by your actions? Do they not have any avenue of seeking compensation for wrongs committed against them?
Enter torts law, often referred to as civil proceedings or civil law. The goal of tort law is to provide relief to people who have been harmed by the actions of another by shifting the cost of the damages to the individual that committed the action. It all might sound great on paper, but in order to accurately provide relief there are some requirements that must be met. These requirements can be broken down into three elements that must be established in every tort action.
First, the person that suffered the harm (known as the plaintiff) must establish that the wrongdoer (defendant) was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Secondly, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to act or not act in a particular fashion. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s action or lack of an action. Time for a real world example. Let’s say that a doctor prescribes a handful of medication without ensuring that there is no conflict with the drugs and it causes you to develop some form of malady. The doctors failure to act in the full capacity that is required of his/her profession is sufficient to bring a lawsuit against them. This example is known as negligence, or negligent behavior.
Without these requirements, we would be able to sue any one for just about any reason. Look at me the wrong way? I’ll sue you for causing me emotional distress!
