Torts are private causes of action for being harmed by others. However, one cann
ID: 1156419 • Letter: T
Question
Torts are private causes of action for being harmed by others. However, one cannot maintain a civil action for all wrongs. For example, someone may have breached a duty of owed to you but if there are no literal damages the case is dismissed. Do you think that people should be held financially accountable regardless of whether actual, literal damages were incurred. In other words, should someone be held financially responsible for breaching a duty of care even though there are no resulting harms? Why or why not. Please be sure to comment upon at least two other students' posts in addition to posting your own thoughts.
Explanation / Answer
The breach of duty of care means there is a high scope that customer will not return back. It is the actual loss to the service provider or defendant if number of customers come down. Hence, it will not be advisable to make the person financially accountable if somebody does not face any damage. Otherwise, there will be a huge number of cases of negligence, where the customers don’t face any loss or damage, but sue the service provider who did not perform a particular duty or showed little negligence. It will increase the cost of service delivery and it will create difficult scenario for the consumers as well as defendant or service provider.
Hence, it will not be wise to make people financially accountable and put financial penalty, when the other party does not get any damage.
Pl. share the other posts in comment to provide comment on these posts.