The floodgates argument has been around the legal profession since at least 1939 when William Prosser, an esteemed American tort law expert famously wrote, “It is the business of the law to remedy wrongs that deserve it, even a the expense of a flood of claims; and it is a…
. “at the cutting edge” of tort law scholarship. (2003)
In two distinct and independent areas of law it is a core element in the debate. In relation to mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder in the wake of the U.K.s involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan questions of the scope of liability have arisen with energy and imperative.
On another level, pure economic loss arguments seeking to extend the potential range of damages have also encountered push back from a floodgates school of legal thought. “How far can tort liability expand without imposing excessive burdens upon individual activity (or, as some may wish, to what extent should tort rules be compatible with the market orientation of the legal system)?” is a key issue in questions of pure economic loss according to Bussani and Parker. (2003)
The following brief discussion will focus briefly on the historical development of this argument. However, the majority of the discussion will focus on the dynamic of the concept in current legal debate and decisions.
The story begins with Cardozo in Ultramares Corporation v Touche 174 NE 441 at 444 (1931). With less panache than Prosser his decision 8 years earlier is arguably even more widely quoted, than Prossers introductory quotation: He raised the spectre of the unattractive proposition of exposing defendants to a potential liability "in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class"
IN 1998 the U.K. Law Commission acknowledged that floodgates arguments arise from “the concern that such a proliferation of claims would clog the court system.” (Law Commission, 1998) Today, particularly in the U.K., Bussani and Parker conclude the floodgate argument to limit liability is “not only pervasive, but has proved persuasive.” (2003)
They provide a valuable typology for pure economic loss in the context of tort liability. They identify transferred loss, Ricochet ...
Cite this document
(“Tort Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/406048-tort-assignment
(Tort Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“Tort Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/406048-tort-assignment.
Aunt Maria and Soraya appear to have a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act and a possible negligence claim for psychiatric injury as secondary victims.1 In order to establish liability for negligence, the four elements of negligence must be present.2 The first element is that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.3 Duty of care is based on the principle that “we owe our neighbor a reasonable duty of care” argued by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson.4 In that case, Mrs.
In discussing duty of care as a legal concept, Lord Atkin established the “neighbour” principle, which were defined as “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.” The Atkin “neighbour principle” paradigm was criticised for being too wide and risking floodgate claims through making it easy for legal practitioners to successfully argue negligence (Horsey & Rackley, 2009).
This paper tends to evaluate some various opinions on this issue; and finally makes a better conclusion of its own. To begin with, the bill according to critics like Lisa Rickard, the president of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform would only help plaintiff’s lawyers to opt-out the programs they do not like.
The duty to care can be summarized in this phrase: every person must be responsible for all the consequences of his acts. The tests for determining the existence of duty or obligation to care were laid down in the cases of Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and Caparo Industries plc v.
The author studies the case damages within the context of Tort Law since it is the only law being practiced at SmallVille where this accident was taken place. The case that jerry can pose against the doctor is of the Negligence tort. The doctor was basically on the breach of the duty of care as per the Tort law.
et of specific statutory guidelines to supplant common law rules to regulate the liability of an occupier towards his invitees, licensees and contractual visitors.
The most significant change in the act is that it imposes on an occupier of the premises a “common duty of
is less than lesion to the body.”1 Specifically in the area of employer’s liability for negligence, the conflict between rightly compensating an employee and the difficulties faced with recognising psychiatric harm has presented the courts with the task of balancing many
In discussing duty of care as a legal concept, Lord Atkin established the “neighbour” principle, which were defined as “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably to
This could either be directly, or indirectly. These damages are often in terms of money from the party that stands accused of causing harm (Currie & Cameron, 2000). Usually, these matters often end up in a court of law. However, civil wrongs cannot be
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Tort Assignment for FREE!