Tort law should not and could not be used to achieve distributive Essay

Tort law should not and could not be used to achieve distributive goals - Essay Example Tort law cannot achieve distributive goals and this attempt would be illegitimate, undesirable, ineffective and non feasible. For instance tort law cannot meet the progressive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor but it is the other way round. Tort law cannot advance the status of groups that are disadvantaged in society since in so many ways it runs short of fairness and that the bottom line is compensation. Social rationality and resource allocation is against the less social valued in society practicing tort law. Tort law cannot achieve distributive goals because it is full of indifference. It is questionable that omissions in tort law are often treated as incurring less liability than acts. Treatment of omission is different from that of acts therefore tort law is law of indifference as in Slovin v Wise (1996) 3 WLR 389. Responsibility for omission is less than that for acts even if damage was identical. It is argued that limiting responsibilities for an individual especially in relation to obligation is the duty of state. In Liability for omission, a distinction is drawn between misfeasance where a party is negligent and nonfeasance where a party does nothing at all. The general rule is that there is no liability for an omission (Slovin v Wise (1996) 3 WLR 389). In justice and rights, morality places an obligation on every individual to save life whenever it is possible. A person wat ching a small child drown in swallow water is morally obliged to save that child. The law of omission in tort gives a leeway. Tort law is a law of monetary compensation and in cases of omission there is no financial claim that results from nonfeasance. In tort, the value of social justice cannot be realized. For instance, Party intervened during an incident that leads to injury is view as less responsible if some third party comes in and causes subsequent harm. Attention is therefore shifted from the negligent act of the defendant toward the immediate wrong inflicted by the third party. It is unjust to say that the original negligent act exemplifies the fact that where injury to property is caused though fault of another party the other party is liable to compensate for the injury caused. It goes without saying that the perpetrator of careless act should be held responsible for injuries caused through there unreasonable behaviour. in Baker v Willoughy (1970) HL the court in the case held that the duty of the motorist and pedestrian with regard to keeping a proper look-out were different; appointment of liability, 25% to pedestrian and 75% to driver. Three years later before a decision on the case was made the claimant was shot during armed robbery in the previously injured led. D still had to make full payment despite the supervening injury because the injury did not rise by accident or lantern condition. The facts of this case demonstrate clearly that tort law cannot achieve distributive goals. For justice to prevail everyone should bear responsibility for their own act. Criminal justice call for a sentence toward the offender in equal measures to the wrong done. If the offender will be a threat to the public, justice and rights of individuals provide for imprisonment. The outcome of tort law can be so unpredictable and economically it may seem difficult to measure permanent damages especially those related to health in monetary terms. In addition, foreseeabl e consequences