Article Review One � PAGE �1�
The Torts of Law
University of Phoenix
BUS 415
May 28, 2009
�
The Torts of Law
After reading the article "No Duty Owed in wrongful Death" by Clausen, our team will gather information about torts and the different types such as Liability, Negligence and Intentional. An intentional tort, as the word says itself, refers to those acts that are cause of intentional wrongdoing. Liability torts refer to cases in which companies, organizations or individuals expose their products, services, etc as reliable. The fact that whatever services or products people might offer are supposedly reliable is like them offering a warranty for which they, most of the times, should be responsible. Negligence torts, in opposite to intentional torts refer to those law cases in which individuals, organizations, etc encounter themselves in difficult situations because of the lack of attention, careless and/or overlook of others.
Each one of the team members will make their own analysis, in detail will describe, and better explain how Negligence, Liability and Intentional torts can be found throughout the reading. As well as how the torts (civil cases) could be resolved by following and respecting laws and regulations that rule for every type of tort.
Under Liability Torts, one will be held liable for any injuries to a person even if they are not at fault. Most recently, the revision of tort law set limitations on the monetary amounts that can be awarded in medical claims. In an effort to curtail the awards for wrongful deaths the courts, set limits for damages. The award amounts had become so astronomical that the insurance premiums for physicians escalated so that it put many doctors out of business.
Under the strict liability rule, a person is liable without fault (1) there are certain...
Tort!
Vague, poorly written, and inaccurate.
This essay begins with a serious flaw: it fails to define "tort." That is important because while tort law is a major part of litigation, the definition is extremely board: a civil action seeking a remedy for a wrong not arising from a contract.
The essay begins by talking of "liability," and only later corrects the term to "strict liability." (Ah, the almost right word.)
The discussion of caps on recovery suggests that doctors were being sued in strict liability. No. Medical malpractice is based on the concept of negligence, the failure of a doctor to meet the standards of a reasonable doctor in like circumstances.
Further, the discussion of capping damages approaches the issue solely from the standpoint of the doctor paying high malpractice premiums. What about the patient who is crippled for life? Or the parents of a child who receives negligent treatment, leaving the parents trying to cope with a disabled child? Shouldn't a doctor who is negligent in such a case have to consider his own fitness to practice?
Of negligence, the four elements are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. One cannot sue for negligence even if there was been an outrageous breach of duty where a duty was unquestionably owed if there were no damages.
Finally, intentional torts require that critical element: intent.
Of the Hamilton case: it is alluded to but never explained in clear terms. Further, the article from which the writer drew his information is questionable. The author is not "C. Miller." It is "Clausen Miller," a multinational law firm which specializes in, among other things, defending insurance companies. Might this firm be something less than completely objective?
Finally, the writer is inexact on what it takes for an insurance agent to create a binding relationship with the company. Simply a meeting will do nothing. To create a binding relationship, the agent will prepare a written document, called a "binder." It is the agent's giving of this binder to the client that creates an insurance relationship.
1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.