Tort Law in Action: Ensuring Accountability in High-Profile Cases

The law ensures fair and equal treatment for all members of society, irrespective of their background and status, overseeing a vast range of activities. Specific regulations can vary depending on the jurisdiction. Tort law, the most prominent area of civil law, preserves each person’s bodily integrity in the context of intentional and negligent interference, so liability is rather simple to establish when someone is physically injured. Individuals bear the compulsory and adverse legal consequences for their actions, and responsibility can emerge from purposeful actions, accidents, or contracts. In essence, a person (or an organisation) becomes legally liable when they are sued for damages, and the court ascertains they have inflicted harm that impairs the normal functioning of things. 

Much Confusion Surrounds The Interrelationship Between Tort Law Claims And The Constitution 

Most claims in civil courts arise from road traffic accidents, slips, trips, and falls, work-related injuries and illnesses, and, just as importantly, medical negligence. To win a lawsuit, the victim must demonstrate the wrongdoer owed a duty of care, that they didn’t adhere to the legal requirements, and that, unfortunately, an injury resulted. The foreseeability test establishes if the defendant reasonably should have anticipated the consequences. Tort claims create horizontal liability, which means private citizens (or companies) can sue one another in court – the plaintiff is the one who initiates the case, and the defendant is accused of causing the alleged harm. 

If the legal matter involves a state actor, know for sure who is responsible for your accident. For example, let’s say you’ve suffered injuries due to medical negligence in Ireland. You can recover compensation for your pain and suffering (somebody close to you), by making a claim against the HSE (Health Service Executive), but, in most cases, disputes are complex, so you need an expert for support and guidance. Roughly all torts involve some constitutional interest, and for this reason, a private party whose interest has been wrongfully tampered with can bring a claim. 

The Duty Of Care Arises In The Tort Of Negligence, A Relatively Novel Concept 

Negligence grapples with accidental harm, which pertains to any injury, damage, or loss that isn’t caused by a deliberate or intentional act. More often than not, it results from attempts to do good. The rule of law regulates all human activity in society, establishing a framework of rules and principles that individuals, corporations, and institutions must comply with to promote transparency, fairness, and honesty. We all owe a duty towards others to exercise the same level of care that a reasonable person would in the same circumstances to avoid something unpleasant. Therefore, the key feature of negligence claims is the behaviour of the defendant. 

Negligence goes against intentional behaviour, in other words, what someone does on purpose, an occurrence that follows from their will being exerted on the outside world. Recklessness implies a conscious disregard for the danger or consequences of one’s actions. Personal injury cases that involve negligence are based on the concept of duty of care, which arises from the proximity of the parties and the foreseeability of the damage. Even supposing the duty of care is breached superficially, it’s enough to open the door to extensive liability for its consequences. In this modern world, a duty of care also means listening to people’s needs and facilitating dignity and choice. 

Prior To The Well-Known Case Of Donoghue Vs Stevens, There Was No Liability For Negligence 

The duty of care was established on account of the neighbour principle enunciated by one of the most influential judges of his generation, Lord Atkin, in Donoghue vs Stevens, which states that a person owes a duty of care to their neighbours, so they must avoid actions or omissions that could likely cause harm to someone else. The 1932 legal decision, stemming from a trivial occurrence in a Scottish café, mobilised substantial transformation in tort law. May Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer containing a decomposed snail, so she sued the beer manufacturer for negligence after having fallen ill. The House of Lords determined the beer manufacturer owed her a duty of care. 

Before the decision, there was no formulation of negligence, meaning that claims were grouped by categories, such as doctor-patient, road users, solicitor/client, and so on. The duty of care gradually developed between the eighteenth century and the present, notably with the removal of the obstacles associated with the principle of volenti non fit injuria, a defence based on the plaintiff consenting to the risk of injury suffered. The previous approach made it nearly impossible for the courts to recognise new categories of claims due to the development of the law. 

Tort Law Has Encouraged A Compensation Culture That Has Gotten Out Of Hand 

The developments in tort law have given rise to an American-style compensation culture in which a high number of claims are fraudulent, exaggerated, or otherwise lack merit against the backdrop of tabloid fury. It seems that the change in societal attitudes translates into undesirable levels of formal disputes, with more personal injury claims issued than ever. Politicians are now in the process of introducing radical changes to reduce the entitlements of injured plaintiffs, including shortening the limitation period for litigation and greater proactivity regarding perjury. The goal is to avoid a state of crisis. 

While the existence of a compensation culture is still debated, there’s no denying the courts are dealing with an influx of personal injury claims, which has led to an increase in fees and insurance premiums. In Ireland, the litigation process is more robust and much less vulnerable to dishonest or deceitful requests for financial compensation owing to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), whose role is to ensure an efficient and cost-effective service for evaluating compensation claims without requiring court proceedings. Still, if you have a case involving medical negligence, hiring a solicitor is advisable because malpractice is automatically excluded. 

In conclusion, judges aren’t the enemies of the people but the only friends we have, so make yourself heard. News media spreads prejudice and ignorance about the law.