Does the Law of Torts Consist of a Principle That It Is Wrongful to Cause Harm to Other People - Assignment Example

?“Does the Law of Torts consist of a fundamental general principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to other persons in the absence of some specificground of justification or excuse, or does it consist of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain kinds of harmful activity, and leaving all residue outside the sphere of legal responsibility?” Two perspectives of the law of torts have emerged. On one side is the perspective that considers liability for doing harm as the general rule, which can only be negated by a justification or excuse from the defendant. On the other side is the perspective that liability ensues only for specific forms of harm. Developments in common law support the latter perspective. Earlier cases on negligence supported the first view but latter trends in jurisprudence reinforced the second perspective. A core principle in tort law is the non-materiality of intent or motive. The rationale for this principle is the prevention of the danger posed in leaving the jury with the responsibility of determining the liability of the defendant based on their views towards the propriety or wrongfulness of the defendant’s motives, especially since it is difficult to determine the motives of the defendant. (Cohen and Cohen 211) This principle developed from several cases. In The Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles, the court held that an improper or even malicious motive that causes damage but is not against the law is not actionable. The court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs because diverting underground water, regardless of intent, is within the property rights of the defendant and therefore legal. The same principle has been reiterated in Allen v. Flood and Abbott v. Sullivan. Non-materiality of intent coincides with the second perspective. The first perspective expresses the general rule on tort liability subject only to negation by a justification or excuse. With the defendant inclined to offer a justification or excuse, it becomes necessary to provide a motive or lack of it to the court as defense. Intent is material in the first perspective, which is contrary to the principle of non-materiality of intent. The second perspective considers tort liability as the exemption unless it is shown that the claim falls within the specific rules on harmful actions. The claimant has to focus on showing that the action of the defendant falls under the actionable acts. The act itself is material and the intent is not, so that the second perspective aligns with the principle of non-materiality of intent. The law of torts comprise of a set of rules that establish particular types of harm or injury. As such, liability for tort only ensues when the action of the defendant is proven to fall within this set of rules. (Cohen and Cohen 211) Chapter 32 of the Torts Act 1977 defines the actions considered as wrongful interference with goods, which are “(1) conversion of goods, (2) trespass to foods, (3) negligence that results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods, and (4) subject to section 2, any other torts so far as it results in damages or to an interest”. The Occupier’s Liability Acts of 1956 and 1984 describes the minimum duty of care towards people’s safety of an occupier (e.g. shop owner, land tenant), who invites other people into the premises or has trespassers. Tort law provisions set the coverage of actionable wrongs to the exemption of all uncovered actions. Liability does not accrue for actions not falling under the forms of wrongful interference with goods and duty of care towards people’s safety is not enforceable in other circumstances apart from what was described by law. As such, tort law expresses the second perspective since it involves a set of specific rules citing harmful activity to the exclusion of other acts. The specific rules in tort law require that the primary question asked is whether the injury claimed by the plaintiff falls within the specific forms of harmful activity (Cohen and Cohen 211). Again, this expresses the second perspective. If tort liability were the general rule, as expressed by the first perspective, then the primary question would have been whether the defense of the defendant falls within the rules on justifications and excuses (Cohen and Cohen 211). The succeeding set of questions focus on determining liability and damages after finding the act as falling under the specified cases of harmful activity. Consideration of excuses forms part of the determination of damages. The process of handling tort cases coincides with the second perspective on tort liability as a set of specific rules on harmful actions instead of a general principle of liability for harm. The specific rules in tort law also require that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. It is the responsibility of the complainant or plaintiff to show that the action of the defendant falls within the rules establishing particular types of harm in order to support a claim for damages. The defendant does not have any obligation to prove that his/her actions do not fall within the rules on liability or the rules on excuses. (Cohen and Cohen 211) This rule supports the second and not the first perspective since the specific rules on burden of proof in tort law require the claimant to prove the inclusion of the harmful act in the specified actionable harms and does not require an explanation from the defendant. Negligence is one of the types of actions that give rise to fault under the specific rules of tort. Negligence is action that leads to unintended harm. This emanates from the duty of care of individuals in their daily conduct. Duty of care involves acting with foresight of the consequences of actions. (Cooke 39) An earlier case of negligence supported the first perspective but latter cases shifted to the second perspective. In the earlier case of Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, Lord Wilberforce asserted the two-stage test in determining duty of care. The first stage determines the existence of a proximate relationship between the parties. The second stage considers the factors that could negate or limit the duty of care of the defendant to the plaintiffs in the particular situation. This test of duty of care aligns with the first perspective on tort liability as the general rule since the concern of the second stage is to determine the existence of a justification or excuse on the part of the defendant. As such, duty of care was assumed and the defendant is asked to provide evidence of exemption from the general principle of liability for doing harm. In latter cases, the two-stage test was amended. In Caparo Industries PLC v. Dickman, the court developed the three-stage test for duty of care. The first stage determines reasonable foreseeable harm to the plaintiff. The second stage focuses on the proximity of the plaintiff and the defendant. The third stage considers the fairness or reasonableness of imposing a duty of care on the defendant. The three stages hold equal weight. This case supports the second perspective by considering foremost whether the claim falls within the specific rules on duty of care instead of seeking a justification or excuse from the defendant. The test was subsequently applied in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, where the court held in favor of the plaintiff since reasonable foreseeable harm, proximity, and fairness of imposing duty of care on the defendant was shown. It is within the functions of the defendant to inspect before approving building plans. It is reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant in preventing a structurally faulty house that created an unsafe and unhealthy dwelling for the plaintiff. Since the claim falls within the rules of duty of care, the court imposed liability on the defendant. Tort law comprises of a set of specific actionable wrongful actions with all other acts excluded from legal responsibility. This finds support from the principle of the non-materiality of intent, the operation of the specific rules of tort law, the burden of proof resting with the plaintiff, and the widely accepted jurisprudence on negligence in tort law. The perspective of tort liability as a general rule has not been supported by current tort principles and practices. Works Cited Abbott v. Sullivan. 1 KB 189. House of Lords.1952. Allen v. Flood. AC 1. House of Lords. 1898. Anns v. Merton London Borough Council. AC 728. House of Lords. 1978. Caparo Industries PLC v. Dickman. 1 All ER 568. House of Lords. 1990. Cohen, Morris, and Felix Cohen. Readings in Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: Beard Books, 2002. Cooke, John. Law of Tort. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2007. Murphy v. Brentwood District Council. 2 All ER 908. House of Lords. 1990. The Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles. AC 587. House of Lords.1895. Read More