Torts and Reasonableness of Claims

Torts and Reasonableness of Claims

Tort law is based on the necessity of determining liability in the legal context and awarding due civil settlements to those parties deemed as entitled or denying such settlements where claims lack sufficient reasonableness. There are an array of tort categories and conditions which play a determinant part in how decisions are rendered and liability is attributed.

A rudimentary factor in determining whether or not a party has some responsibility to those individuals negatively affected by some practice or incident at the behest of said party is that of contractual obligation, with regards to negligence resulting from misrepresentation. So in determining whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to claims of a litigious nature, the legal process demands a comprehensive review of a contract under contest. According, if it can be clearly deduced that the pure economic loss, personal injury or other misfortune was as a result of actions concurring with a fraudulently presented contract, than the contractor should find himself in a position of liability. Moreover, all damages occurring consequent of the contractual agreement, now rendered void, are the sole responsibility of the party levying the contract. Therefore, provided that the plaintiff can present a contract, and that there is a comprehensive body of evidence illustrating the breach of that contract, and that this breach led to the damages in question (such as pure economic loss or personal injury), there is reason to believe that a court should be inclined to side with the plaintiff. In this situation, it seems likely that the plaintiff would be compensated for losses associated with misrepresentation.

However, the absence of a contract or any other legally binding documentation denoting a representation or proposed mission wherein a defendant can be shown to have fraudulently represented its purposes prior to subsequent indiscretions will significantly broaden the range of factors to be drawn into consideration. Without specific and legally binding information about the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, inspection of the circumstances should yield some conditional information about this relationship that will be crucial in establishing what, if any, awards should be reaped due to negligence. This inclines us to consider a basic definition of torts, in which "the plaintiff is the victim of an alleged wrong and the unsuccessful defendant is either directed by the court to pay damages to the plaintiff (the usual remedy) or else to desist from the wrongful activity (so-called "injunctive relief"). Examples include intentional torts such as battery, defamation, and invasion of privacy and unintentional torts such as negligence." (Coleman, 1)

And under the umbrella of negligence law, the burden of proof falls heavily on the shoulders of the plaintiff, particularly in the case of pure economic loss. Because, in the absence of any physical injury or damage, there are multiple rules to which the courts must appeal to establish negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff has the formidable task of addressing several key elements of the situation. In doing so, he must establish that the defendant owed duty of care to him, that the defendant's negligent conduct caused his economic loss and that the loss was not too remote from its alleged cause. These are the factors which constitute the reasonableness of the plaintiff's case, with the court determining whether or not it is fundamentally reasonable to hear a case against a defendant based on the claims made by a plaintiff.

Particularly, establishing that the defendant owed duty of care seems to be the most trying issue thanks, in part, to a series of stipulations that seem to favor the defendant in the situation. One aspect of duty of care, foreseeability, indicates that a plaintiff must prove that his losses were evident and foreseeable to the defending party. However, proof of this alone will not saddle the defendant with duty of care. it's primary function is as a factor in building a case body against the defendant but it will not stand on its own as the determinant of negligence. It must be bolstered by a number of other relevant questions and considerations helping to shape reasonableness. As the research denotes, still within the context of negligence, "a person acts negligently when his behavior departs from the conduct ordinarily expected of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. In general, the law requires jurors to use their common sense and life experience in determining the proper degree of care and vigilance with which people must lead their lives to avoid imperiling the safety of others." (Gale Group, 1)

In many ways though, this is an approach that seems to grant clemency to the defending party. Other elements of vitality in proving the presence of duty of care are delineated in a similar fashion, giving defendants a wide array of fronts on which to attack the plaintiff's case. Particularly, a plaintiff must produce evidence that he was in a state of unquestionable vulnerability at the behest of the defendant. That is, if he was in no position to protect his own interests, a plaintiff may have grounds to assert that it was the defendant's responsibility to ensure that, despite this vulnerability, his interests be considered relative to those of the defendant. The plaintiff must, then, show that his losses could not have been prevented by his own actions or in-actions.

Also significant in the provision of duty of care is the notion that a defendant is not liable if the losses in question occurred as a result of "legitimate activity." If the defendant's alleged negligence transpired under the pretense of actions that could be considered legitimate initiatives of commerce and competition, claims of misrepresentation will lose much footing. This falls under the umbrella of what our research refers to as "intentional torts," which might either be inherently tortuous acts or which might actually be defensible under the pretense of the law. The research differentiates by noting that "under certain circumstances the law permits individuals to intentionally pursue a course of conduct that will necessarily result in harm to others. The harm that results from such conduct is said to be outweighed by more important interests. Self-preservation is one such interest and is embodied in the right of Self-Defense. Individuals may exert sufficient force in self-defense." (Gale Group, 1)

However, in the event that a plaintiff can establish the defendant's duty of care, he must now support his claim of tortuous misappropriation or negligence further by actually proving that the conduct violating this duty contributed directly to his losses. This draws the issue of remoteness into the debate. Proceedings must demand the question, "How far removed from the supposed misconduct is the economic loss?" The plaintiff must provide proof that there is a viable cause and effect connection between the defendant's negligence and his misfortunes.

Principally and theoretically, liability for negligence is intended to protect the rights and interests of private citizens from the practices of commercially inclined organizations. By design and practice, however, the details of the process by which one may establish a reasonable complaint of negligence favor, overwhelmingly, the defendants. With the burden of proof set squarely on the plaintiff, the system in place seems to be most concerned with preserving the commercial integrity of the larger entity under the auspices of restraining to a degree of provable reasonableness the liability of a defendant. The broader tort policy contributes to a reluctance to award claims of negligence to the plaintiff. A conscientious perusal of the conditions for pursuit of a claim should yield evidence that the regular practices of an offending party or corporation are paramount, specifically when compared to the demands of an economically disinclined plaintiff.