Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

TORT (Fr. for wrong, from Lat. tortus...

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V27, Page 65 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

TORT (Fr. for wrong, from See also:Lat. tortus, See also:twisted, participle of torquere)  , the technical See also:term, in the See also:law of See also:England, of those dominions and possessions of the See also:British See also:Empire where the See also:common law has been received or practically adopted in See also:civil affairs, and of the See also:United States, for a civil wrong, i.e. the See also:breach of a See also:duty imposed by law, by which breach some See also:person becomes entitled to See also:sue for See also:damages . A See also:tort must, on theone See also:hand, be an See also:act which violates a See also:general duty . The See also:rule which it breaks must be one made by the law, not, as in the See also:case of a See also:mere breach of See also:contract, a rule which the law protects because the parties have made it for themselves . On the other hand, a tort is essentially the source of a private right of See also:action . An offence which is punishable, but for which no one can bring a civil action, is not a tort . It is quite possible for one and the same act to be a tort and a breach of contract, or a tort and a See also:crime; it is even possible in one class of cases for the See also:plaintiff to have the See also:option—for purposes of procedural See also:advantage—of treating a real tort as a fictitious contract; but there is no necessary or general connexion . Again, it is not the case that pecuniary damages are always or necessarily the only remedy for a tort; but the right to bring an action in common law See also:jurisdiction, as distinct from See also:equity, matrimonial or See also:admiralty jurisdiction, with the consequent right to damages, is invariably See also:present where a tort has been committed . This technical use of the See also:French word tort (which at one See also:time was near becoming a synonym of wrong in See also:literary See also:English) is not very See also:ancient, and anything like systematic treatment of the subject as a whole is very See also:modern . Since about the See also:middle of the 19th See also:century there has been a current See also:assumption that all civil causes of action must be founded on either contract or tort; but there is no See also:historical See also:foundation for this See also:doctrine, though modified forms of the action of trespass—actions in consimili casu, or " on the case " in the accustomed English phrase—did in practice largely supplant other more archaic forms of action by See also:reason of their greater convenience . The old forms were designed as penal remedies for See also:manifest breach of the See also:peace or corruption of See also:justice; and traces of the penal See also:element remained in them See also:long after the substance of the See also:procedure had become private and merely civil . The transition belongs to the general See also:history of English law . In England the general See also:scope of the law of torts has never been formulated by authority, the law having in fact been See also:developed by a See also:series of disconnected experiments with the various forms of action which seemed from time to time to promise the widest and most useful remedies .

But there is no doubt that the duties enforced by the English law of torts are broadly those which the See also:

Roman institutional writers summed up in the See also:precept Alterum non laedere . Every member of a civilized See also:commonwealth is entitled to require of others a certain amount of respect for his person, reputation and See also:property, and a certain amount of care and caution when they go about undertakings attended with See also:risk to their neighbours . Under the modern law, it is submitted, the question arising when one See also:man wilfully or recklessly See also:harms another is not whether some technical See also:form of action can be found in which he is liable, but whether he can justify or excuse himself . This view, at any See also:rate, is countenanced by a See also:judgment of the Supreme See also:Court of the United States delivered in 1904 . If it be right, the controverted question whether See also:conspiracy is or is not a substantive cause of action seems to lose most of its importance . Instead of the doubtful proposition of law that some injuries become unlawful only when inflicted by concerted action, we shall have the See also:plain proposition of fact that some kinds of injury cannot, as a rule, be inflicted by one person with such effect as to produce any damage See also:worth suing for . The precise amount of responsibility can be determined only by full See also:consideration in each class of cases . It is important to observe, however, that a law of responsibility confined to a man's own See also:personal acts and defaults would be of next to no See also:practical use under the conditions of modern society . What makes the law of torts really effective, especially with regard to redress for harm suffered by See also:negligence, is the universal rule of law that every one is answerable for the acts and defaults of his servants (that is, all persons acting under his direction and taking their orders from him or some one representing him) in the course of their employment . The person actually in See also:fault is not the less answerable, but the remedy against him is very commonly not worth pursuing . But for this rule corporations could not be liable for any negligence of their servants, however disastrous to See also:innocent persons, except so far as it might happen to constitute a breach of some See also:express undertaking . We have spoken of the rule as universal, but, in the case of one servant of the same employer being injured by the See also:default of another, an unfortunate See also:aberration of the courts, which started about two generations ago from small beginnings, was pushed to extreme results, and led to See also:great hardship .

A partial remedy was applied in r88o by the Employers' Liability Act; and in 1897 a much bolder step was taken by the Workmen's See also:

Compensation Act (superseded by a more comprehensive act in 1906) . But, as the common law and the two acts (which proceed on entirely different principles) See also:cover different See also:fields, with a See also:good See also:deal of overlapping, and the acts are full of complicated provisos and exceptions, and contain very See also:special provisions as to procedure, the improvement in substantial justice has been bought, so far, at the See also:price of great confusion in the form of the law, and considerable difficulty in ascertaining what it is in any but the most obvious cases . The Workmen's Compensation Act includes cases of pure See also:accident, where there is no fault at all, or none that can be proved, and therefore goes beyond the reasons of liability with which the law of torts has to do . In fact, it establishes a See also:kind of compulsory See also:insurance, which can be justified only on wider grounds of policy . A novel and extraordinary exception to the rule of responsibility for agents was made in the case of See also:trade combinations by the Trade Disputes Act 1906 . This has no See also:interest for law as a See also:science . There are kinds of cases, on the other hand, in which the law, without aid from legislation, has imposed on occupiers and other persons in analogous positions a duty stricter than that of being answerable for themselves and their servants . Duties of this kind have been called " duties of insuring safety." Gene-rally they extend to having the See also:building, structure, or See also:works in such See also:order, having regard to the nature of the case, as not to create any danger to persons lawfully frequenting, using, or passing by them, which the exercise of reasonable care and skill could have avoided; but in some cases of " extra-hazardous " risk, even See also:proof of all possible See also:diligence—according to English authority, which is not unanimously accepted in See also:America—will not suffice . There has lately been a notable tendency to extend these principles to the duties incurred towards the public by See also:local authorities who undertake public works . See also:Positive duties created by See also:statute are on a similar footing, so far as the breach of them is capable of giving rise to any private right of action . The See also:classification of actionable wrongs is perplexing, not because it is difficult to find a See also:scheme of See also:division, but because it is easier to find many than to adhere to any one of them . We may start either from the See also:character of the See also:defendant's act or omission, with regard to his knowledge, intention and otherwise; or from the character of the harm suffered by the plaintiff .

Whichever of these we take as the See also:

primary See also:line of distinction, the results can seldom be worked out without calling in the other . Taking first the defendant's position, the widest governing principle is that, apart from various recognized grounds of See also:immunity, a man is answerable for the " natural and probable " consequences of his acts; i.e. such consequences as a reasonable man in his See also:place should have foreseen as probable . Still more is he See also:answer-able for what he did actually foresee and intend . Knowledge of particular facts may be necessary to make particular kinds of conduct wrongful . Such is the rule in the case of See also:fraud and other allied wrongs, including what is rather unhappily called " See also:slander of See also:title," and what is now known as " unfair competition " in the See also:matter of trade names and descriptions, See also:short of actual piracy of trade-marks . But where an See also:absolute right to See also:security for a man's person, reputation or goods is interfered with, neither knowledge nor specific intention need be proved . In these cases we trespass altogether at our peril . It is in general the See also:habit of the law to See also:judge acts by their apparent tendency, and not by the actor's feelings or desires .

End of Article: TORT (Fr. for wrong, from Lat. tortus, twisted, participle of torquere)
[back]
COUNT LENNART TORSTENSSON (1603–1651)
[next]
TORTOISE

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.