Economic Considerations, and not Justice, should be the Basis of Tort Essay

Economic Considerations, and not Justice, should be the Basis of Tort Law - Essay Example A tort is a common law that deals with resultant interactions between people. It is a civil wrong that mainly ensure the behaviors of an individual does not affect the well-being of another individual. A tort may not encompass an illegal activity, but it concentrates on the harm or loss an individual gets because of another individual action. It, therefore, helps people maintain their previous positions and status they enjoyed before the occurrence of the tort act. In a tort law, the tortfeasor is liable to reinstate the breach of an individual natural position through compensation mainly by monetary terms1. Various debates have prevailed on the intentions of tort law whether to restore justice or ensures people gain previous economic conditions. This is because tort suits make victims transfer problems to other people gaining previous positions while at the same time enduring justice. In as much as torts act as a form of justice, it basis should be economic considerations as justice remain relative through diverse societies. As opposed to common law, this guarantees punishment for the offender upon approval of offense; torts focus on judgment of liability. Concurrently, liability gets paid through economic means that cover compensatory damages to relieve the plaintiff. It is also significant to note that tort does not make judgments based on claims as opposed to criminal laws, which allow claims with support of evidence2. This, therefore, proves torts to be focusing on economic rejuvenation rather than ensuring justice for the offended parties. In an art, shell the argument attempt to reveal the intention of tarts laws, whether to ensure economic fairness of justice. Notably the economic discourse is coming into the forefront of tort law. As a result, many scholars have done proficient research on the arena to establish and gather evidence of the same. From the past, torts remain confused with the aspect of justice while, in real terms, they help restore econo mic lose suffered by the offended victims. They, therefore, are consequential economic loss experiences because of negligence causing a physical injury3. Coincidentally, confusion regarding tort based on justice rather than economic loss also arises due to strict liability accorded to torts. It, however, is essential to note that a difference regarding the economic nature of torts arises due to the strict liability characterized by tort laws. Consequently, torts are not diffusible by excuse or ordinary prudence a factor that approves torts to be focusing on economic justification. Therefore, in as much as torts act as a form of justice the main reason existing behind the action of torts remains economic reactivation4. Various theories can explain the reason why torts consider economic perspectives rather that justice. Deterrence theory, for instance, works on the basis that, for every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. Judging by the principles, deterrence theory ensures people who commit varied offenses remain responsible for their action through limiting future similar actions. From the perspective of this theory, torts subject people to reimbursement of the offended not to ensure justice, but ensure economic stability of the affected5. Consider a person affected by the actions a surrounding industry, which pollutes the immediate environments spreading diseases. The industry is responsible for spreading of diseases, therefore, is responsible for