|
Tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the ability of victims to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Tort actions are civil common law claims first created in the English commonwealth system as a non-legislative means for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another person, property or other protected interests (e.g. physical injury or reputation, under libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates focus on personal injury common law rules in particular. In the United States, tort reform is a contentious political issue. US tort reform advocates propose, among other things, procedural limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages. Supporters of the existing tort system, including consumer advocates, argue that reformers have misstated the existence of any real factual issue and criticize tort reform as disguised corporate welfare.〔(American Association for Justice report on Tort Reform )〕 In Commonwealth countries as well as U.S. states including Texas, Georgia, and California, the losing party must pay court costs of the opposing party. Some legal scholars propose to replace tort compensation with a social security framework that serves victims without respect to cause or fault. In 1972, New Zealand introduced the first universal no-fault insurance scheme for all accident victims, which provides benefit from the government-run Accident Compensation Corporation without respect to negligence. Its goal is to achieve equality of compensation, while reducing costs of litigation. In the 1970s, Australia〔For a speech by High Court judge Michael Kirby, see (''Medical malpractice - an international perspective of tort system reforms'' ) (11.9.2000)〕 and the United Kingdom drew up proposals for similar no-fault schemes〔in the UK, see the ''Pearson Report'' (1978) by the "Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Injury"〕 but they were later abandoned. ==The tort system== Tort requires those responsible (or "at fault") for harming others to compensate the victims, usually in money.〔For instance, a supermarket may not have been safe enough for its customers to shop in by failing to mop up a spillage of yogurt on the floor. ''Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd'' () 1 All ER 219, where the ''res ipsa loquitur'' doctrine was applied where someone slipped on yogurt in a supermarket. An employer may have failed to properly fence off some dangerous machinery, which exposes workers to risk of injury. ''Summers v Frost'' () 1 All ER 870, on the application of the Factories Act 1961, s.14, saying "every dangerous part of any machinery... shall be securely fenced." A manufacturer of ginger beer may have allowed a bottle it sells to have become contaminated, which has made a consumer ill. See ''Donoghue v Stevenson'' () AC 580, where a decomposed snail was found in a soft drink, see Lord Atkin's judgment in particular.〕 Typical harms can include loss of income (while the person recovers); medical expenses; payment for pain, suffering, or even loss of a body part; or loss of future income (assuming that said loss can be proven to be reasonably likely to occur. See speculative damages).〔A typist who loses an arm suffers a loss to his future job prospects and in the case of fatal accidents, financially dependent relatives may be compensated for the loss of money that their loved one would have provided. Known as "bereavement damages" under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in the United Kingdom.〕 These components of the award can be adequately represented in money terms, and (outside the United States) they most often constitute the largest element of the award. The classical purpose of tort is to provide ''full compensation'' for proved harm. This is known under the Latin phrase ''restitutio in integrum'' (restoration to original state). In other words, the idea underpinning the law of tort is that if someone harms someone else, they should make up for it. Compensation should be, in the words of Lord Blackburn in ''Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co'',〔''Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co'' (1880) 5 App Cas 25,39〕 "that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Tort reform」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|