Talk:Tort/Archive 01

message: Actually this whole Tort page needs to be cleaned up and simplified, major legal jargon belongs in a law book, not in an encyclopedia
:Only if removal of jargon will not impair the clarity or concision. Often these words are required as to avoid ambiguity. Bamkin 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with this Page 

message: What about the intentional tort of Forcible Harm (as a civil rights violation), as was classified in 42 USC §1983?  Brown v Muhlenberg Township (269 F.3d 205) references to it and it falls under the category of an intentional tort.  I know this may not be a typical intentional tort, but its covered pretty extensively in law school textbooks.--Mason13a 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Additions 

message: I have reverted some significant changes to the crime/tort relationship. The changes may not hit the right note in style (I'd like to discuss that); made sweeping claims about early socities without references, but most significantly implied that crime and tort overlapped to a very large extent. They don't. Few crimes are torts and few torts are also criminal. Some torts have no origin in the criminal law, which makes me doubt the claims for the origins of dispute resolution (which as I said were unsourced). Francis Davey 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I have made a significant edit to the Tort entry. The previous entry was getting dangerously vague and non POV.
We had:
There is some overlap between tort law and criminal law. A tort is a wrong against an individual, while a crime is a contravention of the rules of the state. Particularly antisocial acts may at once constitute both a tort and a crime on the basis that they are both a wrong against the individual and against society as a whole, represented by the state. A cause of action in tort can also be distinguished from a criminal prosecution which may arise from the alleged violation of a criminal statute. The former is typically prosecuted by a private citizen, whereas the latter is prosecuted by the state, and one or both may be brought forth independently. Moreover, remedies for torts can take the form of compensation for damages or injunctive relief. A criminal prosecution usually results in the imposition of a sentence, such as a fine and/or incarceration.
My criticism of this is that:
(1) some torts are public not private in at least some jurisdictions; 
(2) many torts are contravention of rules of the state, just as much as crimes; 
(3) many overlapping crimes/torts are not particularly anti-social (eg. battery may be a mere deliberate touching).
(4) the proper cognate of "cause of action" is "offence", a criminal prosecution is analogous to a claim (or in other jurisdictions a lawsuit).
Various other infelicities have been corrected. For example, crimes may not be violations of any statute at all (see murder in England).
Francis Davey 17:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older changes 

message: There shouln't be two articles, they should be by national jurisdiction. English tort law and Scots tort law should probably be sections in United Kingdom tort law.--Jerryseinfeld 20:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: So I found this substub Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which I'm pretty sure is related to torts, but I can't figure out where to merge it to. Help appreciated. --maru  (talk) contribs 23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's some hoary old Latin maxim which probably has something to do with the doctrine of unclean hands.  There are tons of these maxims lying around — Black's Law Dictionary has a whole section in the back where most of them are listed. I'm not sure it needs to be merged into anything; it should probably be speedy deleted by an admin.  --Coolcaesar 09:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't -- at least not in my jurisdiction -- its an important concept in the law of tort, and would form part of any course on tort in England and Wales. Its a different concept from unclean hands which is a notion that arises from an equitable maxim and has a different compass. Speedy deletion does not seem appropriate. Francis Davey 17:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: Actually this whole Tort page needs to be cleaned up and simplified, all this legal jargon belongs in a law book, not in an encyclopedia. Put it in a reference section.
:The page needs to be responsive to its community of interest - a lot of users will be law students. Perhaps we can keep the jargon, as it were, but simplify the explanation of the jargon. bd2412 T 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the word "perhaps" is a pleasing touch. David91 01:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with this Page 

message: Does someone more familiar with this project than I help me out here?  I think this should be added, but not sure where:
::==Redressing Rights==
There is a legal maxim that "for every right, there is a remedy."  That is, the law will provide appropriate remedies to protect the right.   Remedies can be equitable (injunction) or in law (money damages).  This legal maxim was first enunciated by William Blackstone:  "it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a rem edy, and every injury it’s [sic] proper redress" 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 23.  See also Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 162-163 (1803).
Thanks!MollyBloom 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an article on Legal remedy. Now that you bring this up, I think we need to link to that article from here.  What does everyone else think?--Coolcaesar 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  What do you think about adding this to Legal remedy?   I am just finding my way around here.  This is impressive how much work you all have done.  I look forward to helping, if I can.MollyBloom 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP?

message: Within Australian civil law an Order of Specific Performance as a tortious remedy can be ordered, generally in relation to nuisance matters. For instance (to use an example from Currie & Cameron, cited in article) if a tree branch hung over one's property one could seek an Order of Specific Performance to have the branch removed. The occurence of such an order in Australian tort law is somewhat rare, however still relevant. Yarub 12:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that a rather hard idea to get my head around -- specific performance was an equitable remedy developed in the context of the law of contract. Can you cite a case where specific performance was ordered in a tortious case? In English law the remedy to deal with an overhanging tree would be an injunction, and its strange that Australia should have changed the terminology. I would like to know more. Francis Davey 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Francis Davey.  In the United States, specific performance is used only in contract, not tort.  The appropriate remedy in tort would be an injunction.--Coolcaesar 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Specific Performance as a tortious remedy

message: An expert should please add this and relevant info in the approriate way and place:  Special damages may be awarded for pain and suffering and mental or emotional distress. http://www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca/showpub.asp?id=2&langid=1 --Espoo 10:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that "special damages" are not awarded for pain, suffering, and mental or emotional distress (and on this I am an expert). Francis Davey 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, looking at the link, the author of the web page has "general" and "special" damages exactly the wrong way around. Francis Davey 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, 'special' are damages that can be precisely quantified such as salary and 'general' are taken from a judicial guidance book and are monetary estimation of pain, loss of ameinity, ect. Bamkin 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing important info