TYPES OF LAWS

Types of Laws

Types of Laws

Tort Law

Tort law has received considerable attention in the economic literature, yet many questions are left unanswered. In this dissertation, three specific areas relating to the economic analysis of tort law are examined: the enactment of state-level caps on punitive damages, the impact of taxable costs statutes on settlement rates, and the optimal level of attorney advertising.

The most commonly occurring type of law suit is a liability suit due to negligence. A liability suit is a legal action taken against an individual or agency due to an injury or damage to property or person. This is called a tort. The word “tort” is derived from the Latin word tortus meaning “twisted” or “crooked”; it is also used in the French language meaning “wrong” (Murray 1994). Tort is defined as “any wrongful act for which a civil action will take place” (p. 1220). There is a difference between a crime and a tort. A crime is an offense against the public at large. For example, possession of a narcotic with intent to deliver and a tort is a civil action. A civil action is defined as a lawsuit brought about to protect personal interest. Therefore, a tort is any act that injures or causes damage to a person or object.

Where there is an act that can lead to a law suit, there is a defense to that suit. Defenses to negligence include the assumption of risk, for contributory negligence, inherent risk, comparative negligence and tort immunity. Each will be discussed further.

There are two types of assumption of risk, expressed and implied. To use expressed assumption of risk as a defense to a liability case, the defendant must be without negligence and the plaintiff may not recover damages from an injury (tort) in which he/she consented to partake. This means that the risks taking place are an integral part of participation. In the Vendrell v. School District 26C (Ore. 1962), a plaintiff argued to the court that he was injured in football practice because he was inexperienced, uncoordinated and unprepared for full contact tackling. The court held that the defendant was not negligent because the plaintiff was aware of the nature of the sport and assumed the risk of injury.

Implied assumption of risk is used when an individual exposes him or herself to a known and appreciated danger. As part of this defense, the defendant must ...