An Academic Survey of Tort Law and Liability
Keywords:
Tort law, civil liability, negligence, duty of care, legal responsibility, and compensationAbstract
Tort law is a key part of controlling civil wrongs since it sets the limits of legal behavior and sets the rules for who is responsible for injury. This article looks at the basic ideas behind tort, law, and culpability, with a focus on how tort law balances people’s rights with their duties to society. It looks at important parts of torts, like duty of care, breach, causation, and damages, and it also talks about the main types of torts like negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability. The research also looks at the goals of tort law, which include compensation, deterrence, corrective justice, and risk allocation. It also looks at current problems including changing ideas about faults, rising liability standards, and the effects of changes in technology and society. By critically assessing judicial interpretations and legal doctrines, the article highlights the continuing relevance of tort law in promoting accountability and justice within modern legal systems.
References
1. Miller FW. A primer of absolute liability. Wash Univ Law Q. 1957;1957(2):182–188.
2. Fleming JG. Tort in a contractual matrix. Osgoode Hall Law J. 1995;33(4):661–678. doi: 10.60082/ 2817-5069.1637.
3. Wright RW. Once more into the bramble bush: Duty, causal contribution, and the extent of legal responsibility. Vand Law Rev. 2001;54:1071–1130.
4. McKinnon JD. Duty versus proximate cause in the law of negligence: A comparative study. Mont Law Rev. 1943;4:1–36.
5. Curren RR. Justice and predictability in torts. Caltech Lib Humanit Work Pap. 1988;1988. doi: 10.7907/65ybr-m7465.
6. Schaefer HB, Mueller-Langer F. Strict liability versus negligence. SSRN Electron J. 2008. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2062787.
7. Moore NJ. Restating international torts: Problems of process and substance in the ALI’s third restatement of torts. J Tort Law. 2017;10(1):1–35.
8. Hylton KN. Intent in tort law. Val U Law Rev. 2010;44:1217–1256.
9. Keating GC. The theory of enterprise liability and common law strict liability. Vand Law Rev. 2001;54:1285–1340.
10. Impact of the blackout on tort liability. Indiana Law J. 1943;18(4):Section 11.
11. Parchomovsky G, Stein A. Reconceptualising trespass. Nw Univ Law Rev. 2009;103(4):1823–1870.
12. Hylton KN. Causation in tort law: A reconsideration. In: Research handbook on the economics of torts. 2013. p. 97–120.
13. Wright RW. Liability for possible wrongs: Causation, statistical probability and the burden of proof. Loy LA Law Rev. 2008;41:1–46.
14. Swisher PN. Causation requirements in tort and insurance law practice: Demystifying some legal causation riddles. Tort Trial Ins Pract Law J. 2007;43(1):1–34.
15. Negligent failure to stop escalator. Indiana Law J. 1942;17(3):Section 7. Statutory violation labelled negligence per se. Indiana Law J. 1942.
16. Micallef-Grimaud C. Article 1045 of the Maltese Civil Code: Is compensation for moral damage compatible therewith? J Civ Law Stud. 2011;4:1–25.
17. Taliadoros J. The roots of punitive damages under common law: A longer history. Clev St Law Rev. 2016;64:251–290.
18. Rogers JM, Shaw RD. A comparative negligence checklist to avoid future unnecessary litigation. Ky Law J. 1983;72(1):25–88.
19. Johnson RE Jr. Comparative negligence – The Nebraska view. Neb Law Rev. 1957;36:240–260.
20. DeWolf DK, Hander DG. Assumption of Risk and Abnormally Dangerous Activities: A Proposal. Mont. L. Rev.. 1990;51:161.
21. Feldman EA, Stein A. Assuming the risk: Tort law, policy, and politics on the slippery slope. DePaul L. Rev.. 2009;59:259.
22. Greene NL. Civil Conspiracy and the Rule of Law: A Proposal for Reappraisal and Reform. Ark. L. Rev.. 2011;64:301.
23. Sacks DP. Intentional sex torts. Fordham Law Rev. 2008;77:1401–1450.
24. Simons K. Investigating the connection between consent, risk assumption, and victim negligence. 2014.
25. Hylton KN. The law and economics of products liability. Notre Dame Law Rev. 2013;88:2457–2500.
26. Carbonneau TE, Garvey C. Judicial experimentation with a strict products liability rule: A comparison of the law in the United Kingdom, Louisiana, and United States common law jurisdictions. 1982.
27. Bertoli P, Grembi V. Medical malpractice: How legal liability affects medical decisions. Contrib Econ Anal. 2018;127:235–261. doi: 10.1108/S0573-855520180000294011.
28. Tucker BJ. Tort Liability for Employers Who Create Workplace Conditions Substantially Certain to Cause Injury or Death. Mont. L. Rev.. 1989;50:371.
29. Buckhalter JB. Speak No Evil: Negligent Employment Referral and the Employer's Duty to Warn (Or, How Employers Can Have Their Cake and Eat It Too). Seattle UL Rev.. 1998;22:265.
30. McIvor C. The use and abuse of the doctrine of vicarious liability. Common Law World Rev. 2006;35(4):268–296. doi: 10.1350/clwr.2006.35.4.268.
31. Trebilcock MJ. The social insurance-deterrence dilemma of modern North American tort law: A Canadian perspective on the liability insurance crisis. San Diego Law Rev. 1987;24:929–972.
32. McLaren J. The theoretical and policy challenges in Canadian compensation law. Osgoode Hall Law J. 1985;23:1–30.
33. Fischer DA. Tort law: Expanding the scope of recovery without loss of jury control. Hofstra Law Rev. 1982;10:1–40.
34. Silva Ferreira FH. Technological change, accident prevention and civil liability. In25th IVR World Congress: Law, Science and Technology Frankfurt am Main 15–20 August 2011; Paper Series; 013 2012. Goethe-Univ.
35. Werber SJ. Ohio: A Microcosm of Tort Reform Versus State Constitutional Mandates. Rutgers LJ. 2000;32:1045.
