Tort Law in the English Common Law - Essay Example

? Tort law Tort Law Tort law is one of the widely applied laws in the English common law. It cuts across from the social to theprofessional fields. It is widely used as a measure to govern the people against any form of injury or harm from those people who are considered to be responsible of their well-being. In essence, it provides civil action against people who fail to act responsibly towards their duty and hence causing harm to those under their care. Due to its common use in determining court cases, a few matters have risen a point of concern in this law during its application. In fact, a number of critics have advocated for an amendment of this law. In its general statement, there is no absolute obligation of an individual to a duty, but there is a duty not to cause harm. This article will focus on the general application of this law, as well as the various exceptions that are provided. The tort law is used to govern the actions of ordinary persons or professionals that can cause harm to those under their care. The tort law is usually applied to defend the right of an individual who suffers injury as a result of breach of duty by their caretaker. In the court, this is accomplished through financial compensation or an injunction. Financial compensation means that the injured person is compensated with money that is perceived to be equivalent to the damage or injury that they incurred. Injunction refers to the stoppage of an unfair act that causes harm to the subject. The person who is placing such a suit is called the plaintiff, while the sued person is referred to as the defendant (Lunney& Oliphant, 2008). This law is characterized by a number of elements. First, an element of duty or responsibility must be evident. For example, the nurses in a hospital have a duty to ensure that all the beds used by patients are comfortable and in order. Secondly, the element of negligence must exist. Negligence refers to the failure to implement the expected duties hence causing harm to the plaintiff. A good example is when a nurse fails to check the condition of a bed and it breaks down resulting in an injury to a patient. In such a case, it is obvious that the patient suffered injuries because the nurse failed to conduct their duties as expected (Lunney& Oliphant, 2008). Therefore, the implementation of this law requires that it is proven beyond doubt that the Offedant had a duty to offer care to the plaintiff but breached this duty. Also, there must exist a causative relationship between the damage and the negligent action. This means that the law only qualifies if the damage was a result of the breach of duty. Hence, the judge needs to establish that all these elements are present in the case before passing any judgment. In professional application, negligence refers to the failure to act in accordance with the set standards of the duties of a competent practitioner. For instance, the doctors must meet the set professional standards in medical practice. If any harm results from compromise of set standards, then the doctor would be liable (Lunney& Oliphant, 2008). In comparison to the Saudi law, the Tort English law is more efficient in defending the subjects of injury or damage. This is because it gives the plaintiff a privilege to act as an adequate witness in court. The major drawback in Saudi law is that the plaintiff is not allowed to testify. The subjects of the case are regarded as unreliable and biased witnesses. Therefore, the plaintiff is allowed only to provide written allegations before the court. On the other hand, the defendant is allowed to defend themselves orally. This is a disadvantage for the plaintiff as the Saudi law puts more weight on oral testimony than on written allegations. A good example is a case in Saudi court that involved a British citizen who had visited Saudi on vacation. He suffered a spinal injury as a result of being hit by an overgrown Coral while sitting on a wooden platform. The plaintiff lost the case. Other disadvantages in Saudi courts are lack of procedural order as well as women discrimination (Volokh, 2009). However, the tort law has faced criticism for a number of reasons. First, the law does not assign individuals any absolute duty to serve or rescue others. It only provides a duty for individuals not to inflict harm while undertaking their responsibilities. This is referred to as the lack of liability in the omissions. For instance, if an individual observes a child drowning in a river, they have no legal obligation to save the child. This implies that they are not liable to any court action for failing to save the child. However, if the person decides to save the child and in so doing acts carelessly or negligently causing harm to the child, they become punishable. According to critics, it is harsh for the law to punish such an individual. In a case, a Mr. Stovin, who suffered an accident on an unclear road, lost his case against the council on the ground that the council had not undertaken any duty that resulted in this accident (Faure, 2011). However, exceptions exist if there is a special relationship between the two parties (Faure, 2011). Such relationships include that of parent and child, doctor and patient, employer and employee, teacher and student among others. In such a case, there is a legal responsibility to act. Consequently, in such a situation, if a parent fails to rescue their children while drowning in a river, the parent would be punishable in the court. This shows that the court act is functional only if the individual has willingly accepted their responsibility, but failed to implement it as expected from him. In summary, the tort law can be considered more effective in defending the rights of the plaintiffs as compared the Saudi law. However, it has major weaknesses such as its view on the liability of omission. It advocates for individual to avoid duties so as not to be held responsible in any action that may accidentally result in harm. It fails to consider the extent of damage that would have resulted if an individual completely omits such a duty. In my opinion, a law reform should be implemented in order to make this law even more effective. It should reflect on the harsh clauses that can result in avoidance of duties that would be of more benefit to the society as a whole. With amendments, the Tort law would be a more effective civil law. References Faure, G. (2011). Liability for Omissions in Tort Law: Economic Analysis. Retrieved from: Lunney, M & Oliphant, K. (2008). Tort Law: Text and Materials. United States: Oxford University Press. Volokh, E. (2009). Rejection of Saudi Arabia as an Alternate Forum for Resolving a Dispute. Retrieved from: Read More