• Why do you think a society would address liability for civil wrongs separately from criminal wrongs?
First, it is very necessary to understand what “civil wrong and criminal wrong” is, so we can have a better climate to discuss what is at stake. Civil wrong is “An action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract”. (The law dictionary). On the other hand, a criminal wrong is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction. That being said, society would address liability for civil wrong separately from criminal wrong because in civil wrong, the plaintiff stand to benefit from the compensatory damages as well from the punitive …show more content…
Such case is tried based on the civil burden of proof- preponderance of the evidence. On the contrary, society or individual do not have the legal standing to prosecute a criminal case; the government do. So when a case happens to be a criminal wrong, the government prosecute the person involve in the crime, if found guilty, is either incarcerated, given a community service or fine as a penalty. However, the fine for criminal liability does not in any way go to the individual but to the government. Lau and Johnson (2011, p. 117-118). An example is the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown, although the grand jury could not bring a criminal charge against the shooter (Wilson) due to inconsistency in witnesses testimonies, the possibility for him to face a civil liability case very much exist. The Brown family could sue him for wrongful killing of their son even though he did not face a criminal charge for his action. Officer Wilson’s action hurt the society that is why he might face such civil suit. Another reason society would address liability for civil wrong separately from criminal wrong is to ensure that justice is served by any means. As long as the law provides remedies …show more content…
For example, when a jug of milk spilled on the floor of a supermarket and the supermarket manager did not warn customers to prevent them from stepping on it and get slipped, what justification or excuse will he give to avoid liability? Although tort law is not a result of legislation, the societies we live hold and respect its application because it’s a make-up of society norms. Obviously, not every incident is intentional and not every incident is a mistake. The question that comes to mind is how do we know when a tortfeasor intentionally commits a fault and when he made a mistake? That to me is the beauty of tort law that brings a tortfeasor to account irrespective of what happens, so long there is tort committed. Another example I want to consider is the auto industry. Their intention is not to kill people but the products they sell to people are potential death trap. In my opinion, people should learn to accept that circumstances warrant liability in the world we live. With this idea in mind, we cannot avoid situation that brings liability to us. There is a popular saying that ignorance is not an excuse to law. It is still active in today’s world. According to Lau and Johnson, tort law does not actually give room for excuses because actions could either be intentional, negligence, or strict. (2011, p. 119). On the other hand, the case of a tortfeasor swinging a
First, it is very necessary to understand what “civil wrong and criminal wrong” is, so we can have a better climate to discuss what is at stake. Civil wrong is “An action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract”. (The law dictionary). On the other hand, a criminal wrong is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction. That being said, society would address liability for civil wrong separately from criminal wrong because in civil wrong, the plaintiff stand to benefit from the compensatory damages as well from the punitive …show more content…
Such case is tried based on the civil burden of proof- preponderance of the evidence. On the contrary, society or individual do not have the legal standing to prosecute a criminal case; the government do. So when a case happens to be a criminal wrong, the government prosecute the person involve in the crime, if found guilty, is either incarcerated, given a community service or fine as a penalty. However, the fine for criminal liability does not in any way go to the individual but to the government. Lau and Johnson (2011, p. 117-118). An example is the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown, although the grand jury could not bring a criminal charge against the shooter (Wilson) due to inconsistency in witnesses testimonies, the possibility for him to face a civil liability case very much exist. The Brown family could sue him for wrongful killing of their son even though he did not face a criminal charge for his action. Officer Wilson’s action hurt the society that is why he might face such civil suit. Another reason society would address liability for civil wrong separately from criminal wrong is to ensure that justice is served by any means. As long as the law provides remedies …show more content…
For example, when a jug of milk spilled on the floor of a supermarket and the supermarket manager did not warn customers to prevent them from stepping on it and get slipped, what justification or excuse will he give to avoid liability? Although tort law is not a result of legislation, the societies we live hold and respect its application because it’s a make-up of society norms. Obviously, not every incident is intentional and not every incident is a mistake. The question that comes to mind is how do we know when a tortfeasor intentionally commits a fault and when he made a mistake? That to me is the beauty of tort law that brings a tortfeasor to account irrespective of what happens, so long there is tort committed. Another example I want to consider is the auto industry. Their intention is not to kill people but the products they sell to people are potential death trap. In my opinion, people should learn to accept that circumstances warrant liability in the world we live. With this idea in mind, we cannot avoid situation that brings liability to us. There is a popular saying that ignorance is not an excuse to law. It is still active in today’s world. According to Lau and Johnson, tort law does not actually give room for excuses because actions could either be intentional, negligence, or strict. (2011, p. 119). On the other hand, the case of a tortfeasor swinging a