#1.) Which of the following is a tort?
A
B
C
If you answered "All of the Above," you're right!! (Sort of...technically "B" is a torte) For those of you who have heard politicians tossing off talking points about "tort reform," you may have wondered what a tort was, and why we need to reform them. Allow me to cast away the mystery with a quick breakdown of American law (or Common Law, generally).
"The law" is bifurcated into the categories "criminal" and "civil." If you're in court because Uncle Sam is mad at you, you're involved with criminal law. If you're in court because your neighbor is mad at you, you're in civil court.
Civil law, in turn, is divided into two sections: Contracts and Torts. As my paying subscribers are aware, contracts are essentially agreements between parties giving rise to legal rights, and are used for hornswoggling. For example, if LeBra James decides he's a big pouting sissyface and decides not to play the rest of the series because he's tired of Dirk beating up on him, most likely he's in breach of the terms of his contract with his South Beach posse. They can therefore take him to court and sue for damages (unless the contract has an arbitration clause, but that's a different story...)
Torts, on the other hand, are everything you can sue somebody for that isn't a contract. The silly-looking Asian gentleman above is handsomely demonstrating both Assault and Battery. Answer choice C is a splendid specimen of Libel.
Generally, analysis of torts involves four elements: A duty one person owes to another, a breach of that duty, damages must result from the breach, and the breach must have caused the damages. If any one of those elements is wanting, a person is not liable for the tort in question. For example, I owe Mr. Hixson a duty not to libel him, but I wish him well trying to prove my above statement caused him any damage. Case dismissed.
Once again, lawyers have taken this opportunity to demonstrate their true colors. In our cowboy republic, the rugged individualist ethos has manifested itself, or rather not done so, in the legal system by not imposing any duty on a person to rescue another. To illustrate, consider Attorney Asshat, who is walking along a set of train tracks. He happens to come across an infant lying on the tracks, and well aware of the local train schedule, decides to settle in for some cheap entertainment. Although he is irritated that the train is behind schedule by nearly 20 minutes, after some delay his dastardly diversion occurs as one might imagine. Upon learning what happened, the poor child's mother sues Asshat. The case is dismissed, because Asshat owed the child no duty to rescue him.
***As a footnote, the townsfolk then dragged the lawyer to the train tracks, where he was repeatedly run over by lengthy trains. No compliant was filed.
There are exceptions to the general rule that Americans have the right to be scum to their neighbors, however. Some relationships are deemed "special," and give rise to a duty to rescue. Common examples are parent and child, or husband and wife. In one piece of brilliant lawyering, it was adjudged that drinking buddies, or rather "social co-adventurers" owe each other a mutual duty of rescue. So while I can watch small children suffer horrendous injury for my own amusement, I am in trouble if I watch Mr. Hixson stumble drunkenly into the street for a nap and don't at least roll him onto the sidewalk. Thank you, men of the bar, for protecting the men of the bar.
Also, Joe, that means you have to get me off the railroad tracks.
No comments:
Post a Comment