>At 8:41 PM +0930 22/7/02, Dav wrote:
>>Hmm but I still couldnt define the word tort....is it an acronym?
>
>
>At 22:10 22-07-02 +0930, Simon H wrote
>http://www.dictionary.com (where else) says:
>
>tort Pronunciation Key (t�rt)
>n. Law
>
>Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in
>circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of
>contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[Middle English, injury, from Old French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from
>Latin, neuter past participle of torqure, to twist. See terkw- in
>Indo-European Roots.]
>Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
>Edition
>Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
As Simon says, a tort is a legal term relating to a civil common-law (i.e.
neither criminal nor statute law) situation. It relates to a claimed
breach of a duty of care, which caused personal injury to one party who
then claims a sum of money (called 'damages') to compensate them for their
loss or injury.
To prove a tort, the claimant ('plaintiff') must prove that:
1. A duty of care existed
2. That duty of care was knowingly, recklessly or negligently
breached, and
3. The breach contributed directly to a loss or injury for which
the plaintiff seeks compensation.
Unlike criminal law, civil law only requires proof on the balance of
probabilities (instead of beyond reasonable doubt), and a person who is
found not guilty of a criminal offence may still be served with a claim for
a tort and be found liable to pay compensation to the person whom he/she is
alleged to have wronged.
Tort cases have been far more common in recent years because of a number of
factors:
People are far more likely nowadays to seek to blame somebody else
for their misfortunes, and less likely to accept responsibility for their
own decisions and actions
The courts are far more likely to apply a broad view of one
party's duty of care to another, and expect people to be more knowledgeable
about a potential duty of care to someone else
Lawyers are now able to take on cases on a "no result - no
payment" basis, where they agree to take on a case in return for a
proportion of the judgement damages rather than charging "a set fee, win or
lose".
This encourages plaintiffs to take on unwinnable cases, and
defendants and their insurance companies to settle them out of court for
some payment rather than incur the higher costs of properly defending a
case which is tenuous at best.
The contrary argument is that for small damages, most people
cannot risk losing the cost of having the case argued for them and so would
choose not to claim compensation to which they are rightfully due - in
which case justice is not done, and is seen to be not done.
Knowing that plaintiffs often have to shell out up to 90% of their
damages to pay their lawyers, those cases that do get as far as a jury
often end up with an award of damages far in advance of what is reasonable,
because the person who has been wronged can only get a reasonable amount
for themselves if the award also covers the huge fees taken by those who
argue the case for them.
Hence the common saying that the only people who win out of accidents
nowadays are the legal profession (and everybody else worries how they will
pay their insurance premium next year).
Wombat
--
* You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list.
* To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message
* or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
