How do the cases discussed in unit 3 contribute to our understanding of the aims of tort law?

In the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, it was held that although the police could be liable in tort for injuries as a result of their acts or omissions, there was no general duty of care to individuals in the public who might suffer injury as a result of criminal activity. It was also held that as a matter of public policy, the police are immune from negligence actions which occur in the course of their work. The claimant here basically sought to bring an investigation on the activities of the police concerning “the ripper”. She felt the investigation was conducted negligently and she wanted to avert future occurrences. Harlow classified this aim of tort as vengeance. “ Our imperfect society still contains people who will utilize antisocial means to wreak vengeance on those that injure them”. This statement suggests that Mrs Hill was merely out to get vengeance on the police for the death of her daughter. This is also related to the fact that we are increasingly becoming a litigious society. For instance, children go to court to report cases of bullying at school, sports people sue because their team mate who has injured them has managed to escape punishment. This aim of tort law suggests that sometimes it is not about getting damages as in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. Damages would not compensate her for the loss of her daughter but if those she feels are responsible get punished this in itself would be compensation enough. In a way, the claimant was also trying to use corrective justice. In this sense, tort law acts as an ‘ombudsman’ which can scrutinize the activities of individuals and companies alike. This was not allowed in this case because there was a fear of ‘inculcating a defensive state of mind’. This basically means that the police would carry out their activities with the fear that if they make a mistake, they could be sued and this would in fact detract form their effectiveness.

 The Alcock case involved people who had been killed as a result of over crowding at the Hillsborough football stadium. People claimed for psychiatric damage, personal injury e.t.c. However, in this case, the courts were reluctant to let just anybody claim. Their decision was based on propinquity in space and time. In effect, the claimant has to show that there was a close relationship of love with the deceased and also that they were present at the event and witnessed the occurrences of the day. This was necessary in order to ward off a large number of claims also known as the floodgates. This event was broadcast live on television and there were a large number of people who could decide to stake a claim. The corrective justice aim of tort was attempted in this case. The aim of viewing tort law as an ‘ombudsman’ which can scrutinize activities of public and private bodies. This as we can see was not successful because the courts are reluctant to allow the police be investigated .Critical legal theorists were off the view that tort law has failed the society in the sense that in one of the most televised disasters, “no individual, no corporate body has had to admit even negligence”. This suggests that tort law does not in fact do what it claims to do i.e corrective justice, loss spreading, deterrence e.t.c. but is only actually enforced when it suits the courts to do so.

In the case of Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc, tort is used as a moral law. Tort law is increasingly seen as embracing moral values and this can be seen in the ‘neighbour’ principle which is broadly enforced because it is necessary for all members of the society. In the above case, the respondents were deemed to have been negligent in their duty in giving a reference.