Can Tort Law Be Moral - Essay Example

Most courts do not mark out the bounds of duty that limit the defendant's responsibility. What they sometimes do is protect the interests of the individual who is seen to have suffered a loss. However, it is also important for the courts to be able to limit the defendant’s responsibilities because of the problems arising due to “floodgates”. In addition, sometimes the courts treat certain groups of defendants leniently by limiting their liabilities in some of the cases.

On the other hand, the courts can decide to draw a line marking out the duty bounds to protect the interest as well as giving out compensation to the individuals who have gone through suffering and injury. This act of fairness is considered the major aim of tort law. Limitations placed on the defendant's responsibilities act as a fundamental necessity to prevent a situation in which countless, potentially tenuous or spurious, claims are against the tortfeasor. The policies that restrict the bounds of duty try to ensure justice and reasonable compensation to the victim. This is done without exposing the claimants to a given level that he or she might get tempted and the defendants to such hard labor that would be as a result of lack of policies and precedent.

Many attempts have been there to help in establishing the bounds on duty such as Dongue v Stephenson that has gone through development, to more recently the Caparo test that states that the act or omission must be foreseeable, just and proximate, fair and reasonable in order to have a care of duty. This case was central to the formation of duty of care, which was an important concept that limited the responsibility by outlining the idea of a reasonable man. The Capro test evolved from this case, and it is becoming clear that many courts are attempting to defendant's responsibilities.

Another case involved Victoria railways commissioner’s v Coultas (1888), which stated that arguments of floodgates resulted in damages arising from just mere terror that was sudden. In such cases, floodgates limited litigation. In most cases, what the courts did was hold back and apply the decisions on policies instead.
Relating back to the Spartan steel & alloys v Martin and Co (1973), the duty of care breaching appeared to cause a huge debate, particularly in regard to the economic losses incurred. The damages in this case that were physical were all recovered in terms of compensation whereas the loss incurred economically was not for although consequential, it was an independent loss. This instance marks another example where the courts seem to be limiting the defendant's responsibilities as a matter of policy. Read More