Torts 101

By John Anthony Concepcion
A tort is any injury to a person caused by another. It is not based on a criminal act, although in some cases it can be. It is civil in nature and the liability can be enforced through a civil action.

For example, a person slips and falls inside the premises of a building because of poor maintenance by the owner. He suffers injury and hospitalized. If he can prove that the owner was remiss in his responsibility to keep his building safe, then he can file a civil action to recover a sum of money to compensate him for his injury.

People file tort cases against offenders for four main reasons. First is to compensate the victim for the injury he or she suffered because of an act or omission of another person. Second, it is to compel, by way of a court action, the guilty party to compensate the victim for all the injuries suffered as well as for all the consequential effects of those injuries. Third, it works as a preventive measure against the re-occurrence of the negligent action in the future. Lastly, it is to safeguard the rights of the offended party.

There are three main kinds of torts and they are differentiated by the nature of the liability of the guilty party. These are torts based on negligence, strict liability and intentional wrong.

The first kind is an easy one. It is like saying that the guilty party is to blame for another’s injury because he failed to prevent it and he has a duty to keep it from happening. For example, an owner of a merry-go-round is supposed to ensure that no one is injured while riding in his equipment. If someone does, the owner is liable once proven that his negligence was the cause of the injury.

The second one is tort based on strict liability, which is a species of personal injury. It applies to manufacturers who release to the market defective products and causes injury to people. For example, if a person is injured because of faulty brakes in a bicycle, the manufacturer can be held liable if the product was inherently defective to start with.

The third kind is the tort based on intentional wrong, an example of which is when someone knew that what he was doing will cause injury but decides to go through with it. The person is liable both criminally (if applicable) and civilly liable, meaning he can be sentenced to serve jail time and pay damages to the victim.

If you have experienced any of these three kinds of torts, then it would be better to consult trial lawyers who are well versed in handling torts cases. There are many law firms in California that specializes in personal injury and claims based on torts.

We have personal injury trial lawyers California who have excellent qualifications and track record in handling California Personal Injury Trial Cases.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

The tort reform movement’s failure to launch2

By: John Anthony Concepcion
The law on torts is there for a reason. It helps prevent the introduction of faulty and unsafe products in the market. It makes medical practitioners more careful. It protects the interest of those aggrieved and works as an equalizer since an impoverished victim can go after the biggest company that had been negligent in checking its products before it released them to the public. It levels the battlefield even for the handicapped.

It is like saying that the city government itself should not indemnify the person who was hit by a government employee driving a Los Angeles-owned vehicle.

Overall, it all boils down to a debate on interest. The real question is who stands to benefit from all this tort reforms being advocated? In whose interest are all these proposed changes for?

The answers are readily apparent from the proposals themselves. Moreover, it counters the basic legal maxim that the law should always favor those who have less in life.

Our law firm's Los Angeles Attorneys are also expert Los Angeles Court Lawyers for various lawsuits involving Personal Injury, Employment, Business and Social Security Disability issues.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

The tort reform movement’s failure to launch1

By John Anthony Concepcion
For some years now, a debate has been occasionally distracting this country on whether or not reforms should be introduced in our civil law system, particularly in the area of torts. The discussion was put in motion by what many call as the tort reform movement, which had been met with an equally strong opposition from those who advocate the preservation of the status quo.

For the benefit of those who do not have an idea of what "tort" means, it has been legally defined as "a negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute" (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm). It came from the French legal term "avoir tort," which literally means, "to have wronged."

It pertains to a wrongful act that causes harm to a person’s body, reputation and in some cases, property. The most common form of liability arising from a breach of the law on torts is that of personal injury.

The primary objective of a case on torts is to compensate, remedy and indemnify the victim of the loss or injury he or she suffered because of an intentional or negligent act.

The crux of the tort reform movement is in its description of tort cases as "frivolous lawsuits" which tend to frustrate the administration of justice by clogging the courts with baseless claims in pursuit of monetary gains.

As an indirect effect, tort reform advocates say it slows down economic growth because the big business companies that are the subject of these suits spend millions of dollars in settlements on practically unfounded claims. It has been further argued that court lawyers get an unusually large share in these settlements. (For more information on the tort reform movement, visit the website of the American Tort Reform Association at http://www.atra.org)

In order to supposedly change this state of affairs, supporters of tort reform propose amendments to the law on torts such as, but not limited to, changes in the products liability law; abolition of the solitary liability rule; and to put limitations on the liabilities for medical malpractice, punitive damages and non-economic damages.

Objectively speaking, the issues raised by pro-reform advocates and the ends they seek to achieve are quite sensible and proper. However, the means may not be as palatable to many as they hope it is, and it ends up as just another wrong way to fix a malady.

If the tort reforms being proposed and its advocates were to be taken at face value, it would appear that they are in favor of those sued on a tort case. It is like taking the advantage away from those injured by the negligence or acts of the supposed guilty parties and the battlefield becomes unequal.

If the intention is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, then the proper way to minimize such suits is to institute changes in the judicial system in order to weed out the frivolous claims from the legitimate ones. In fact, the proposals of the tort reform movement operate as a carte blanche that will affect even the claims of legitimate victims.

Our law firm's Los Angeles Attorneys are also expert Los Angeles Court Lawyers for various lawsuits involving Personal Injury, Employment, Business and Social Security Disability issues.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com