Why,youmight ask,must theinterest of societybeconsideredwhen dealingwithadisputebetweentwoindividuals?Becauseour commonlaw system isbasedoncaseprecedent,everydecisionrenderedbyacourt has thepotential of establishingarulethat must befollowedbyother courts. Society,therefore,hasaninterest inensuringthat disputesbetween litigantsareresolvedthroughaprocessof resolutionthat isfair andjust for all concerned.Theveryprinciplesset forthtodaywill bethosethat governthecasesof tomorrow.
1-5MoralityofConduct
Isthemoralityof adefendant’sconduct relevant intort law?Although personal moralitymaybesubject tovariation,tort lawborrowsheavily from asenseof publicmorality.It canbesaidthat,at least incertain cases,weall haveasenseof what isuniversallyregardedasright and wrong.Tort lawgenerallyreflectsthat sense.
Therearecircumstances,however,inwhichadefendant canbeheldliable eventhoughheor shehasviolatednomoral code.Onewho,for example, trespassesonthelandof another inthereasonablebelief that it ishisown landisstill liablefor trespass.Withtheincreasingpopularityof no-fault torts,suchasstrict liability,weappear tobemovingawayfrom aneedto cast moral judgment onadefendant’sconduct.Incontrast,tort lawdoes not deal withall blatantlyimmoral acts.Althoughit maybemorally reprehensible,for example,toallowastranger todiewhenyoucouldsave her,inmost circumstancesyouwill havecommittednotort.
1-6Slippery-SlopeArguments
Caseprecedent,theeffect of arulingonafuturecase,isamajor part of thedevelopment of tort law.Courtsareoftenhesitant tocrackopenalegal door inaparticular casefor fear of creatinga“floodof litigation,”an occurrencetheyareever onthealert toavoid.For that reason,sometypes of flagrant misdeedsarenot vindicatedbytort law.Relativelytrivial concernsmust alsogobythewaysideinaneffort tominimizethefloodof litigation.Manyof our most grievoushurtsareinflictedinthecontext of interpersonal relationshipsandyet most of thesemust gowithout redress. Loversarejilted,childrenareverballybelittledbyparents,friendsare “used,”andsoon.Thelawcannot becomeenmeshedinthesepsychically damagingeventsif thelegal system istoavoidtheadministrative nightmarecreatedbyanonslaught of cases.Clearly,not all humanwrong canberemedied.
Perhapsyouhaveheardof theslippery-slopeargumentArgument that onceyoutakeafirst stepinallowingsomethinginoneinstance,youarein danger of slidingthe“slipperyslope”intoabottomlesspit of circumstancesrequiringcomparabletreatment,whichmeans,essentially, that useof anargument inonecasewill allowapplicationof that same argument ininnumerableother cases.Themetaphor isusedtoshowthat onceyoutakethefirst step,it istooeasytofall downtheslipperyslopeto thebottom of thehill,presumablyintoamorassof undesirableoutcomes. Theslippery-slopeargument is,inessence,anadministrativeconcern.A court fearsthat if it findsnegligenceonbehalf of thesympatheticplaintiff
beforeit,hundredsof thousandsof similarlysituatedindividualsor those whosesituationsareanalogoustothecasewill alsoseeksimilar redress. Theprecedential effect of argumentsregardingphysician-assistedsuicide, racial compositionof juries,andtheuseof marijuanafor medical purposesareamongthemanyslippery-slopeissuesconsideredbythe courts.
Keepinmindthat,althoughcourtsaretofocusonthelong-term inmaking their decisions,theysometimesareunderstandablysympathetictothe plight of theindividualsbeforethem.Insuchcasestheyoftenrender decisionsthat meet theshort-term goalsof justicebut that proveuntenable over thelongrun.Justice,youwill soondiscover,isanillusorygoal that ofteneludescapturebyeventhemost conscientiousjudge.
Another guidelinethat courtsuseinformulatingtheir holdingsis the Restatement of the Law of Torts.The Restatement wascompiledby eminent legal scholarsandpractitionersinanattempt toprovidelawyers andjudgeswithblack-letterlawLegal principlesgenerallyacceptedby thelegal community(legal principlesgenerallyacceptedbythelegal community,alsoreferredtoasblack-letter law) of tort law.Adoptedin manyjurisdictions,the Restatement isfrequentlycitedincourt opinions.
Althoughcriticizedfor creatingtheimpressionof uniformityinthelaw wherethereisnone,the Restatement isneverthelessafrequentlyused guidethroughthemazeof tort lawdecisions.For thisreason, the Restatement isoftencitedthroughout thistext.Keepinmind,however, that your statemaynot haveadoptedthe Restatement position.Consult the caselawinyour statewhendealingwithaspecificcase.
Net News
Tolearnmoreabout theAmericanLawInstitute,whichpublishes the Restatements,andtogainabetter understandingof what the Restatements areandhowtheyarecompiled,gotoyour favoritesearch engineandlocatethearchivesof theAmericanLawInstitute.Refineyour searchunder “Collections.”
Tort lawdiffersfrom contract lawintermsof thevoluntarinessof entering intoanagreement.Whentwoor morepartiescreateacontract,theyeach agreetogiveupsomethinginreturnfor receivingsomebenefit.Ina contract action,thepartieshavevoluntarilyandknowinglyassumedduties or obligationstoothers.Intort law,bycontrast,dutiesareimposedbythe lawwithout theexpressconsent or awarenessof thoseinvolved(Exhibit 1–3).If aguest isinjuredonalandowner’spremises,thelandowner is liable,not becauseheexpresslycontractedtoprevent injurytotheguest, but becausethelawimposescertainobligationsonhim byvirtueof being alandowner.
Theremedyinacontract caseistocompensatetheprevailingpartywith thebenefit of thebargain.Inother words,theremedyistoprovidethem withwhat wasexpectedunder thecontract.Inatort casetheremedyis muchbroader andthevictim of atort maybeawardedmonetarydamages for painandsuffering,economicdamages,andpunitivedamages.
Exhibit 1–3
TortsversusContracts
TORTS CONTRACTS
DUTIESASSIGNED Imposed by Law By Parties' Consent
OBLIGATIONSMADETO Society in General Specific Individuals
Just aswithcriminal law,however,thereisanoverlapbetweentort law andcontract law.Certaintort dutiesmaycoincidewiththosedutiesset forthinacontract,for example,sothat if apartyfailstoliveuptoits
obligations,anactionmaylieineither tort or contract.Additionally,some quasi-contractual obligations(suchastheobligationtoact ingoodfaith) areimposedbylawwithout theconsent of theparties,just asintort law.
Oneother distinctionbetweencontract andtort lawisthat incontract law, obligationsaremadetospecificindividualsbyvirtueof anagreement of theparties; whereasintort law,dutiesareimposedbylawandowedto society.Intort law,oneisboundtoact asareasonablepersontowardall other persons,but incontract lawoneisboundincontract onlytocertain chosenindividuals.Thisdistinctionisnot completelyvalid,however,in that tort lawprinciplesimposespecial dutiesinsomecasesbecauseof the relationshiponehaswithanother.Anemployer,for example,owesduties of caretoher employeesthat shedoesnot owetoother persons.
Youwill findasyoupursueyour studyof tortsthat thisareaof law overlapswithmost other areasof law.Therefore,youwill frequentlyfind yourself referringtoknowledgethat youhavegainedfrom thestudyof propertylaw,constitutional law,criminal law,contract law,corporatelaw, andsoon.
1-9BriefHistoryofTortLaw
If thisisthepoint inmost textbookswhereyouskipahead,tryto persevere.Youmight besurprisedat howinterestingtheevolutionof tort lawreallyis(Exhibit 1–4).
Exhibit 1–4
Evolutionof Tort Law
Blood feud (no fault)
Action in trespass (no fault) (Vi et armis) (Directuse of force)
Trespass on the case (wrongfulintentor negligence) (No force or indirectinjury)
Negligence (faultrequired)
Strictliability (no fault)
Inbarbaricsocietiestheonly“law”that seemedtocontrol groupbehavior haditsrootsinthebloodfeud.Theprotocol of thebloodfeudrequiredthat theclangotowar against anyoutsider whoinflictedharm onaclan member,therebydishonoringtheclanasawhole.Atonement for the humiliationsufferedbythevictim’skinseemedtheprimarygoal.
Despitetheobviousdeterrencethissystem of justiceprovided,itsinherent violenceanditstoll onthosewhowereobligatedtoprotect familyand clanmemberspromptedreform.Ultimatelyanegotiationprocesswas developedinwhichthevictim summonedtheperpetrator tothe“moot”—a forum inwhichthevictim pleadedhiscasetothecommunityandasked for aredressof hisgrievance.Communitymembersofferedadviceabout howbest toresolvethedispute.Whenasolutionacceptabletobothvictim andperpetrator wasfound,thepartiesdispersedandthebloodfeudwas averted.
Whenthelawfirst assumedamorecivilizedveneer,theremediescreated servedassubstitutesfor thefeudingprocess,andthusemergedtheconcept of monetarycompensation.EarlyinAnglo-Saxonhistory,individualswere assignedamonetaryvaluebasedprincipallyontheir rank.Moneyinstead of bloodwasofferedasasalvefor injuredclanpride.Compensationwas directedtowardtheclanrather thantheindividual,andawardswere distributedproportionatelyamongtheinjuredperson’srelatives.There wasnodistinctionbetweencrimesandtorts.Furthermore,thereseemedto benoconcernregardingissuesof fault or blameworthiness.Eventhemost remotecausal connectionwassufficient tojustifytheimpositionof punishment.
Interestinglyenough,duringthissametimeperiodvengeancewasexacted onwhatever wasdeterminedtobetheimmediatecauseof death,evenif it wasananimal or inanimateobject.Theoffendingobject,beit ahorseor a sword,might beturnedover tothevictim or thevictim’sfamilytobeused astheysawfit,or deliveredtotheking.
1-9aAction in Trespass
Over timethemoot processof disputeresolutionledtotheestablishment of certainfundamental rules.Communitiesdiscovered,throughtrial and error,thosedecisionsthat ledtothegreatest peaceandharmony.
TheactionintrespassEarlycauseof actioninvolvingserious,forcible breachesof peacethat evolvedtoencompassevenminor physical contact; noshowingof fault wasrequired,whichemergedsometimeinthemiddle of thethirteenthcentury,wasoneof theproductsof thecommonlaw evolution.Thisaction,whichwasbasicallyof acriminal nature,dealt with seriousandforciblebreachesof peace.Oneof itsrequirementswasthe showingof forceandarms,referredtoas vi et armis.
Theplaintiff hadtoallegethat thedefendant hadusedforcedirectlyonthe plaintiff’spersonor property,thustheterm vi et armis appearedinevery writ of trespassasamatter of course.Nofurther showingof blameworthinessor fault onthepart of thedefendant wasnecessary.As timewent on,however,evenmild,innocuousphysical contact was sufficient for theplaintiff toprevail inatrespassaction,andthepleading of vi et armis becameameretechnical device.
Toseeanexampleof atrespassinaction,readthewhimsicallywritten caseof Tricoli v. Centalanza.Donot beconcernedif youdonot fully understandthelegal arguments,becausewehavenot yet discussedthe legal conceptsat issue.Inessence,theappellatecourt concludedthat the trial court wasjustifiedinrequiringonlyoneof thedefendantstopayall of theplaintiff’sdamagesandinassessingdamageseventhoughthe plaintiff’sdamageswerearguablyinconsequential.
Case
Tricoli v.Centalanzaet al.
126A.214(1924) SupremeCourt of NewJersey.Oct.8,1924
“Runaway,MaestroJuan,I am goingtokill you.”Suchwastheferocious threat that disturbedtheatmosphere,not of prehistoricMexico,where
upondesolateplainsthesavagecoyotestill baysat themoon,nor yet of classicVerona,wheredramaticmemoriesof thehousesof Montagueand Capulet still linger toentrancetheromanticwayfarer,but from the undilutedatmosphereof BloomfieldAvenue,whereit windsitsattractive coursethroughtheprim rococoshadesof modernMontclair,whichupon thedaysucceedingChristmasin1923sat likeRomaimmortalisuponits sevenhills,andfrom itsthroneof beautycontemplatedwithserene satisfactionthepeaceandtranquilityof themodernworld.
TheMaestro,however,withtruechivalricdisdain,refusedtoretreat,but determinedat all hazards,likeHoratius,toholdthebridge,or rather the stoop,uponwhichhestood.LikeatrueRoman,inoculatedwiththe maximum percentageof Americanpatriotism,heturneddefiantlytothe oncominghouseof Centalanza,andproclaimedinthebellicoselanguage of theday,“Youtoosonof agun.”
Inthedaysof theMontagueandCapulet,aristocraticrapiersandswords defendedthehonor of their respectivehouses; but inthisdayof popular progresstheMaestroandtheCentalanzasought onlytheplebeiandefense of fistsandashovel.Asaresult of atriangular contest,thephysician testifiedthat theMaestrowasbattered“from headtobuttocks”—a distributionof punishment,it maybeobserved,which,whileit maynot be entirelyaestheticinitsselectionof alocum tenens,wastosaytheleast equitablyadministeredanddistributed.Indeed,somuchwastheMaestro batteredthat hisdailytoil lost him for 12days,andthetrial court estimatedthat thisloss,together withhispainandsuffering,andthe aggravationof thetrespass,entitledhim toreceivefrom thehouseof Centalanza$240.
Thelatter,however,hasappealed,andallegesthat theMaestroprovedno substantial causeof actionagainst them.But thelearnedtrial court,upon thiscontestedstateof facts,concluded,andwethinkproperly,that there wasanissueof fact thuspresented,sincethesuit wasfor assault and batteryinthenatureof trespass vi et armis.But thedefendantsCentalanza insist that twodistinct encounterstookplace,onebybothdefendants,and theother byoneonly,andtheyask: Howcansuchaphysical contretemps beadmeasured,soastoimposeuponeachmember of thehouseof Centalanzahisfair shareof compensationfor hisphysical contributionto
themelee?Theinquirypossessesitslatent difficulties,but,sinceit isan admittedruleof lawthat thecourt will not distributethedamagesbetween tortfeasors,uponanytheoryof equitableadmeasurement,thehouseof Centalanzaobviouslymust bear theentireloss,without seekingapartition thereof....
Indeed,it wouldprovetobeararefeat of judicial acumenwerethecourt toattempt togiveduecredit toDonatoCentalanzafor theprowesshe displayedinhisfisticendeavors,andtoassesstoRaffaleCentalanzahis meadof financial contributionfor thedexteritywithwhichhewieldedhis handyimplement of excavation.It isdoubtful,eveninthesedaysof the mysticprizering,whether suchametaphysical test maybeincluded amongtheaccreditedmental accomplishmentsof aquasi-militant judiciary,which,whileit occasionallyindulgesinacausticpunch,still strenuouslyendeavorstomaintaintheproverbial respectabilityandregal poiseof itsancestral prototype.Insuchasituationwearenot inclinedto imposethisextraordinaryandnovel fieldof jurisdictionuponour inferior courts.Theoccurrenceof trespass vi et armis confersuponthetrial court theright toassessexemplarydamagesassmart money,andthisthetrial court properlydidunder thecircumstancesof thecase....
It iscontended,however,that theactual damagesustainedbytheMaestro wasinconsequential,andthat therule,“De minimis non curat lex,” applies.It must beobvious,however,that damagewhichtotheattending physicianseemedtopenetratetheMaestro“from headtobuttocks”may seem trivial tousasnoncombatants,but totheMaestroit manifestly seemedotherwise,anddoubtlesspuncturedhiscorpus,aswell ashis sensibilities.Indeed,hewell might declareinthelanguageof thegallant Mercutioof Verona,concerningtheextent of hiswound: “It isnot aswide asachurchdoor,or asdeepasawell,but’ twill serve.”
Thejudgment will beaffirmed.
1-9b Trespass on the Case
Theactionintrespasswashighlyrestrictiveinthat it precludedrecovery bythosewhocouldshownouseor onlyindirect useof forcebythe defendant.Acompanionform of actionknownastrespassonthe caseEarlycauseof actioninvolvinginjuriesinflictedindirectlyand
requiringsomeshowingof faultarosetoallowrecoveryintheabsenceof forceor incaseswhereaninjurywasinflictedindirectly.Aplaintiff who wasinjuredwhenthedefendant wieldedaplankof woodagainst him couldpursueanactionintrespasstoredresshisinjuries,whereasa plaintiff whotrippedover that samepieceof woodleft carelesslyinher pathbythedefendant hadtoresort toanactiononthecase.
Althoughdamagetotheplaintiff wasimpliedinanactionintrespass,the plaintiff inatrespassonthecasewasrequiredtoshowinjuryanddamage. Trespass-on-the-caseactionsdemandedproof of thedefendant’swrongful intent or negligence,whereasanactionintrespassrequirednoshowingof fault.Trespassonthecasewasfrequentlyusedasameansof recovering for breachof alegal dutygroundedoncustom.Thosewhoservedthe public,suchasinnkeepers,werefrequentlythedefendantsinsuchcases.
1-9c Negligence
Thedevelopment of publictransportationseemstohavehadaprofound influenceontheevolutionof tort law.Asthecourtswerefacedwithmore traffic-relatedcases,theycametotherealizationthat decisions mechanicallyrenderedinfavor of victimsunder thetrespasstheory (whichmerelyrequiredtheshowingof direct force) wouldhavea prohibitiveeffect ontheuseof highways.Under thisapproach,fewcould affordtorisktravelingonthehighwaysandlosingtheir fortunesasa result of anaccident.Thus,theideaof negligenceemergedasa compromise.Travelersweregrantedsomemeasureof protectionfrom liabilityaslongastheydroveinsuchamanner that theyreducedtherisk of accidents.
trespassonthecasedorequiresuchproof.Althoughremindersof these dinosaursof tort lawemergeoccasionally,theyhavefor themost part been replacedbythemoderntortsthat arethesubject of thistext.
At thebeginningof thetwentiethcentury,problemsof povertyandsocial disadvantagebegantobeseenassocietal rather thanindividual problems. Increasinglythegovernment wascalledupontointerveneandredressthe wrongsvisiteduponindividuals.Thetort “scientists,”whohadbeen content tosystematicallycatalogtherulesof tort law,gavewaytothe legal “realists,”whosawthemselvesmoreasrevolutionariesthanasmere observers.Nolonger content withrulesthat createdfair resultsbetween parties,thesescholarsstrovefor rulesthat equitablydistributedlosses.In other words,tort lawcametobeviewedmoreasameansof creatingajust societythanassimplyapeaceful resolutionof interpersonal disputes.The fault theoryof tort lawwasabandonedinfavor of asystem that provided
social justice.William Prosser,oneof themost notedtort scholarsand author of oneof themost influential treatisesontort law,advocatedthat thepurposeof tort lawwastoprovidejusticerather thantosimplypunish anddeter inappropriateconduct.Heforcefullyandsuccessfullylobbied for theadoptionof strict liabilityinreferencetodefectiveproductsonthe premisethat liabilityshouldbebornebythosebest abletobear it (the manufacturer).
For what reasonhavewetakenthisbrief excursionthroughthehistorical rootsof tort law?Learningtort lawisnot just about memorizingcaselaw andlegal principles.Atrueunderstandingof tort lawrequiresaknowledge of thepurposesit servesanditsrelationshiptosocietal goalsandneeds.
Muchadoisbeingmadetodayabout thereform of tort law,but these reformshaveessentiallyarisenasmembersof societywrestlewithcertain basicissues.Shouldsocietybear thecost of lossessufferedbyindividuals, or shouldthat responsibilitybeshiftedtotheindividual?What roleshould fault playintort law?Isthepurposeof tort lawmerelytoresolvedisputes, or isit toseethat justiceisdone?
Tort lawislargelyaproduct of commonlaw,althoughstatutesare,in someinstances,reliedon.Thecourtsfrequentlylooktothe Restatement of the Law of Torts informulatingthelaw.
3. A(n) crimeisanoffenseagainst society,whereasa(n) tort is anoffenseagainst anindividual.
4. Intort lawtheburdenof proof ispreponderanceof the evidence.
5. Thebloodfeudrequiredaclantogotowar against any outsider whoinflictedharm onaclanmember.It waseventually replacedbya(n) moot,inwhichavictim wouldpleadhiscaseto thecommunityandaskfor redressof hisgrievance.
6. Atort that involvesthepleadingof vi et armis isa(n) action intrespass.Amorerestrictivetort that allowsrecoveryinthe absenceof ashowingof forceisa(n) trespassonthecase.
