The law serves numerous purposes. Out of these, the main one stipulates when a person is liable, in other words, answerable to the law for their acts and omissions. Tort law is the area that protects and compensates people who the negligence or recklessness of wrongdoers has injured. The specific rights protected give rise to the elements of the tort. A defendant is considered liable only if that person is “at fault” in one way or another, so it doesn’t matter if they intended to cause damage. The basis of liability is that the defendant inflicted unjustifiable harm or unjustifiably violated the plaintiff’s rights.
The Legal System Operating in England & Wales Is a Common Law System
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, based on judicial decisions and incorporated in reports of decided cases. During the reign of King Henry II, local regulations were replaced by new national ones, so they were “common to all”. The Church and State were separated, having their own laws and court systems. This ultimately led to rivalries over jurisdiction, particularly since appeals from church courts could be taken to Rome. Scotland has its own judiciary and court system; the law of Scotland isn’t a purely common law system but a mixed system containing civil law and common law elements.
The main difference between a common law system and a civil law system is that the former relies on jurisprudence, which means that previous determinations of a court of competent jurisdiction are binding on lower courts and the court that has made the decision. It’s a system of precedent. In civil law, codified statutes are of prime importance. As a rule, torts are tried in front of a jury without a judge. Beginning with 1996, payments have been made according to a tariff set by Parliament, so there are set amounts of compensation for specific injuries. Even if the UK has a constitution, many significant elements are found in statutes that have been approved by Parliament.
Tort Law Spread to Many Parts of The World Following World War II
English tort law has its roots in mediaeval times, so it can be found in Old English procedural law. Lawyers and judges in English royal courts distinguished between crime and tort, so each lawsuit had its own form and nature. Torts were corrected by writs of trespass claiming the use of force and arms against the king’s peace; for every proven breach, the king’s courts punished the wrongdoer, sometimes with death. Many historians have observed that the aftermath of World War II led to the widespread use of tort law in many parts of the globe; its influence was especially visible in continental Europe.
After a period of heavy fighting and sacrifices, many envisioned a Europe run by a central government, while others called for economic cooperation to achieve an internal market. At any rate, as the continent began to merge politically, a common tort law emerged in the middle of the 20th century. Despite mounting criticism, the tort system remained intact. Still, it was held to a lower status, as most of the compensation for reparable injuries is paid via social security systems and insurance claims. Currently, the EU law provides various tort law rules, especially regarding the liability of EU institutions and Member States.
Donoghue Vs Stevenson: A Famous Case in English Law
Donoghue Vs Stevenson was a crucial decision in the Scots delict law (the Scottish equivalent of tort) and English tort law, shaping the tort law and the negligence doctrine. Mrs Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire, accompanied by an acquaintance to buy frozen dessert and a bottle of ginger beer. A dead snail was in the bottle. Mrs Donoghue fell ill due to the decomposed remains of the snail, which caused severe gastroenteritis. Mrs Donoghue made a claim against the manufacturer who owed her a duty of care, which was breached, demonstrating that this failure was foreseeable. Not only was her claim successful, but it also gave rise to the establishment of the modern law of negligence.
At the time, the law of negligence was limited and could only be invoked if there was some kind of contractual relationship. For the sake of clarification, Mrs Donoghue couldn’t claim a breach of warranty of contract because she wasn’t party to any contract. Getting back on topic, prior to the Donoghue Vs Stevenson case, a person could be held financially responsible only for physical damage inflicted directly (i.e., trespass to the person) and indirectly (i.e., trespass to the case). This case established the general principle of duty of care in law that so many judges, philosophers, and scholars use today, formulated by Lord Atkin.
Contemporary Tort Law – Emerging Trends of Tortious Liability
During modern times, tort law was repeatedly criticised as being complicated, costly to society, and beneficial to trial attorneys. Nevertheless, its rules have proven to be adaptive to the needs of a more complex world. If the criteria are fulfilled, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, so they’re put in the position they would have been if the tort hadn’t occurred, being compensated for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. For more information, please visit https://www.accidentclaims.co.uk/. It’s interesting to note that the nature of liability is expanding with the development of society, so the courts must recognise different situations.
For instance, there’s now the idea of cyber torts, which represent torts committed in cyberspace or by using a computer. It goes without saying that the term cyber tort isn’t present in any statute or act enacted by Parliament, even if it’s not radically different from the traditional concept of tort. Let’s take another example. Environmental pollution can be regarded as a tort, as its roots can be found in the common law principle of nuisance. Nuisance occurs when the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their land is interfered with substantially; environmental pollution is a nuisance if it causes discomfort to others.
Conclusion
English tort law continues to develop so as to achieve greater coherence, and it’s not implausible to suggest that the torts of the future will present intellectual challenges for law students, professors, lawyers, judges, administrators, and so on.