Economic Considerations Should be the Basis of Tort Law Essay

Economic Considerations Should be the Basis of Tort Law - Essay Example Intentional torts on the other hand refer to harm or injury caused to a person or persons by the intentional misconduct of another or others. Theft, assault, arson and fraud are good examples of causes of intentional torts. Liability torts tend to focus on the damages resulting from a person's act rather than the intention. This means that if an action causes harm, the performer of the same is liable regardless of whether they exercised the expected degree of care or not or whether the action was maliciously done or was a result of an accident. The economic framework states that each society has laws, institutions, policies which lead to inequitable distributions of economic resources and burdens among members of any given society. These economic frameworks because human political processes which eventually lead to change, both across and within societies with time. Structurally these frameworks are beneficial as the economic distributions arising from them usually affect human live. The tort law has over time evolved in many jurisdictions to consider the legal and economical implications since these are the two most important aspects of the tort laws.One theory that has developed is the deterrence theory. This theory is most applicable in accident prevention. Essential the theory aims at reducing the occurrence of accidents by making those responsible for the accident bear heavy financial cost for their unsafe conduct. General and specific deterrence are handled quite differently in tort law. The tort law admonitory effect largely dictates on how specific deterrence goes. Insurance services, however, cushion the defendant from feeling the adverse effects of this approach to tort law. In traffic accidents for instance, the motorist who causes the accident hardly feels a pinch from the monetary damages they are required to pay as the same is catered for by insurance services. The deterrence is completely lost. Deterrence theory has been said to change the primar y focus of the tort law. The crafter of the tort law intended to reduce injury through deterring behavior likely to cause harm. a careful and critical analysis of the tort law however proves that the approach of deterring through burdening those who cause harm financially may not have the desired effect due to several factors. The approach assumes that in the normal conditions, people tend hold maximization of wealth as their primary goal. This may not be strictly true in all societies. The theory further makes the assumption that there exists a large psychological relationship between safer conduct and tort law as people will tend to behave more safely to avoid being subjected to tort fines. This assumption tends to suggest that people behave rationally and are guided by projected consequences of their actions. This is not the case on the ground. Studies have shown that a driver is more likely to commit an accident if they have been fined for an earlier accident. Human nature has b een described by many classical philosophers as being rebellious. Once a driver has caused an accident and has gotten away with just a fine, they do not improve their driving since their minds are unconsciously programmed that all they will have to do is to pay a fine if they cause an accident.2 The most fundamental question that ought to be asked when analyzing the deterrence theory is: Does tort law really deter? Economic analysis largely dominates legal discussion on tort law. This is in order because the economic aspect of the same cannot be