LAW OF TORTS |

Описание: Law of Tort
भारतीय अपकृत्य विधि (Tort law in India) अपेक्षाकृत नयी कॉमन ला है।

अपकृत्य का उपयोग कानून में कोई ऐसे कार्य के लिए किया जाता है जिससे कोई क्षति या अपकार हुआ हो। इसकी मुख्य विशेषता यह है कि उसका प्रतिकार क्षतिपूर्ति के द्वारा संभव है है। अपकृत्य, संविध के उल्लंघन से संबंधित नहीं है और साथ ही में वह अपराधिक भी नहीं होता।
अपकृत्य एक सिविल दोष है जिसका उपचार अपरिनिर्धारित नुकसानी के लिए कॉमन लॉ अनुयोजन है और यह संविदा भंग या कानून भंग या अन्य सामयिक बाधाओं का भंगीकरण नहीं है।
अंग्रेजी विधि प्रणाली में 'टॉर्ट' शब्द का प्रयोग नारमन न्यायाधीशों के द्वारा किया गया था। टॉर्ट का शाब्दिक अर्थ है, तोड़ना या मरोड़ना। अपकृत्य विधि काफी प्राचीन है। इसका उल्लेख अनेक ग्रंथों में हैं जैसे नारद, व्यास, बृहस्पति तथा कात्यायन की स्मृति में।
A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
Tort law involves claims in an action seeking to obtain a private civil remedy, typically money damages. Tort claims may be compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. A wrongful act, such as an assault and battery, may result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution, although in the U.S., the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which also provides civil remedies after breach of duty that arises from a contract; but whereas the contractual obligation is one agreed to by the parties, obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. In both contract and tort, successful claimants must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty.
Torts and crimes at common law originate in the Germanic system of compensatory fines for wrongs (OE unriht), with no clear distinction between crimes and other wrongs. In Anglo-Saxon law, most wrongs required payment in money or in kind (bōt, literally 'remedy') to the wronged person or their clan.[4] Wīte (literally 'blame, fault') was paid to the king or holder of a court for disturbances of public order. Weregild, which was a murder fine based on a victim's worth, was intended to prevent blood feuds.[3] Some wrongs in later law codes were botleas 'without remedy' (e.g. theft, open murder, arson, treason against one's lord), that is, unable to be compensated, and those convicted of a botleas crime were at the king's mercy. Items or creatures which caused death were also destroyed as deodands. Assessing intention was a matter for the court, but Alfred the Great's Doom Book did distinguish unintentional injuries from intentional ones, whereas culpability depended on status, age, and gender.
After the Norman Conquest, fines were paid only to courts or the king, and quickly became a revenue source. A wrong became known as a tort or trespass, and there arose a division between civil pleas and pleas of the crown. The petty assizes (i.e. of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment) were established in 1166 as a remedy for interference with possession of freehold land. The trespass action was an early civil plea in which damages were paid to the victim; if no payment was made, the defendant was imprisoned. The plea arose in local courts for slander, breach of contract, or interference with land, goods, or persons. Although the details of its exact origin are unclear, it became popular in royal courts so that in the 1250s the writ of trespass was created and made de cursu (available by right, not fee); however, it was restricted to interference with land and forcible breaches of the king's peace. It may have arisen either out of the "appeal of felony", or assize of novel disseisin, or replevin. Later, after the Statute of Westminster 1285, in the 1360s, the "trespass on the case" action arose for when the defendant did not direct force. As its scope increased, it became simply "action on the case". The English Judicature Act passed 1873 through 1875 abolished the separate actions of trespass and trespass on the case.
In 1401, the English case Beaulieu v Finglam imposed strict liability for the escape of fire; additionally, strict liability was imposed for the release of cattle. Negligently handling fire was of particular importance in these societies given capacity for destruction and relatively limited firefighting resources. Liability for common carrier, which arose around 1400, was also emphasized in the medieval period. Unintentional injuries were relatively infrequent in the medieval period.