The term tort law refers to common law jurisdiction. It is intended at bringing justice to victims of common wrong committed with no specific intentions or will. This manage situations where one suffers loses or harm due to behavior or conduct of another individual. The action or behavior may not be necessarily illegal or criminal. The victims are allowed to recover their loss. The victims have to proof before a court of law that the presence or absence of an action led to their loss.
The tort laws is different from criminal law in that it may be pursued when an individual has suffered harm while at the same time no crime is committed by the defendant. The tort law further requires more lenient standard of proof than criminal law that gives no room to circumstantial evidence. People charged with criminal law may be referred to tort laws if the evidence is found wanting or insufficient on some courses.
The first case which fits Speed Demons against Graham is considerable in tort laws. The complainant in this case, Graham is liable for most of his own misfortune. He puts himself in danger by doing cart racing while under the influence of alcohol. He further endangers his life by riding on high speed which he is not well experienced on. In this case, he shifts primary blame from the respondents to himself. This is arguably because the defendant is protected by tort of consent and warning. However, Graham has a case to proof against the respondents and which holds water in the tort court and laws. The standard action which is in other quarters referred to as negligence bides the respondent in this case. In particular, the tort of negligence minds the legal rights which bide personal safety, property and economic interests of individuals. In this giving, the speed Demons is bound to safety and legal rights of the complainant who is Graham in this case. To ensure his safety, the court would argue that the company had to ensure Graham was safe within their premises and activities managed and sponsored by the same company. The company thus had the responsibility of ensuring that Graham was fit for the speed carts. This would be possible by ascertaining that he was experienced in riding the speed carts and also that he did it on a clear mind and conscience (Scott 18). However, the company failed to ascertain these and allowed him on the tracks while they Cleary understood he was under the influence of alcohol. They further allowed him to sign a consent form while drunk, something they knew would alter his judgment. Theses factors amount to negligence on part of the defendant.
On the part of his friend causing more injuries and leading to his lose of leg power; I am of the opinion that Graham is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. This is because there was no intentional, nuisance or even liability on side of the friends to save him or cause more injuries in this case. The friends had no liability whatsoever to take care of Graham and his actions. Their actions and commitments were personal and limited to time and situation at hand.
It is evident that the complainant and the first defendant acted in a way that resulted to injuries and physical harm to the defendant. It is true that the complainant was the primary cause of his own misfortune. However, it was upon the defendant to ensure compatibility and adherence of the consumers to set laws and rules of the game. The second defendant has no case to respond to as his actions were not intended and were in no way based on negligence or ignorance. In this case, the complainant and the defendant bear the responsibility in reasonable portions (Cornford 31)
In case number two pitting Togs to Go against Kirk, it is evident that tort laws was overlooked leading to abuse of Kirk’s rights and privileges as a consumer. The claim that Kirk made on the shirt may be unacceptable without the receipt depending on the seller’s policies. However, no policy allows or calls for abuse of individual’s rights. Although the business may claim that Kirk abused the tort law touching on nuisance, it may stand futile by the fact that Kirk walked towards the door upon instruction. It may be proofed that the security personnel acting for the company abused this law by holding Kirk’s hand and agitating him further. The security personnel may be accused further for defamation for claims that Kirk had stolen the shirt in the first place, a claim he could not substantiate. The remanding of Kirk for hours without any legal basis amounts to intentional tort crime which is worth compensation and further legal action that may deem fit.
In the second case, it is evident beyond reasonable that Kirk’s rights were abused and his image tarnished. It is further evident that the behavior f the clerk and the guard were annoying and disgusting to other consumer’s amounting to general nuisance which penile under the tort laws. In this case, I am of the opinion that the complainant be compensated to the full course ( Hodgson 326).
The tort laws are fit to ensure equality, justice and normality in any society. The laws apply primarily to avoid ignorance and negligence which may in some way affect lives and comfort of the general public and more so consumers. The laws sound fit to prevent and hinder any type of exploitation by individuals or companies to others who may sound weak or of low ability. The laws protect human rights and dignity. In comparison to the criminal laws, they are favorable to both the complainant and the defendants.