'Tort Law gives unjustified preference to corrective justice over Essay

Tort integrity gives unjustified preference to nonindulgent justice over distributive justice. Critically evaluate this statement - turn out ExampleSome scholars like Coleman (1994) commence argued that the nature of the law of torts favors the corrective ends, whereas others like Konow (2003) as strong as Wolf and Musselman (1990) argues that there is a need for the law of torts to take up a balance among the distributive and the corrective ends of the law. Not withstanding the foregoing controversial debates, the law of torts tends to lean its balance more towards the corrective end than the distributive ends. Tort Law Basic Features The term tort is a word that is derived from Latin word tortum, to mean injustice or wrong. The law of tort therefore proceeds from recognition of the fact that some acts in society may be unjust and therefore needs to be change by reversal through the law. According to Coleman (1994), a tort may be defined to mean a unlawful act that causes injury to a person or property and the law allows for a claim by the injured componenty to be compensated for damages. Some of the generic labels that have been associated with torts include breach of affair although this is just on of the major concepts in the law of torts. The law of tort has no absolute formulas through which questions are resolved. Both the legal scholars and the judiciary have pointed out emphatically the facts that the law of torts is a complex process that is never mechanically applied nor is it static rather it often depends on circumstances of the case, and that as time elapses, more and more torts get discovered (Blomqiuist 1990 Koestler V. Pollard 199) Patel 200). The tortseeks to reflect the balance the society seeks to strike between competing values. The facts in the case in question determine the right decision. For instance, automobile drivers are make liable to the injuries that they cause as they carry out their duty but only if the injury resul ts from their disfigurement or negligence. On the other hand, manufactures take the liability of the injuries stemming from their defective products, the reasonable care they might have taken not withstanding. Most individual torts require that fault be shown on the suspects part. More often, the extent of the defendants fault will form the basis of the liability that the defendant bears to the plaintiff. This is the case with torts such as negligence, defamation, nuisance and trespass. However, within the law of torts there are also cases of fixed liability torts where the defendant will not be required to prove fault on the part of the defendant it will suffice for purposes of tortious remedies against the defendant that the plaintiff suffered damage and that the damage was occasioned by an run or omission of the defendant (strict liability torts).Generally, at common law, the strict liability torts are confine to activities that are hazardous. There is also Liability for Defe ctive Products Act, 1991 which creates strict liabilities on manufacturers with regard s to wellness sustained by consumers of their products. The principle function of the law of tort is to establish weather there is an offense and if there is to come up with a remedy. At common law, damages are the most widespread remedy. In such a judgment, the defendant is normally required to offer financial compensation to the