Question.3599 - Why do you think a society would address liability for civil wrongs separately from criminal wrongs? Should a wrongdoer be potentially liable both for civil wrongs as well as for criminal wrongs related to the same wrongdoing? Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. In common law countries, strict liability was originally imposed for abnormally dangerous activities. What was the rationale for extending strict liability to everyday products sold in commerce? Do you agree with this extension of strict liability? Explain your answer.
Answer Below:
Hello, professor and everyone; from the notion of distinct purposes both separate treatments of civil and criminal wrongs serve within our legal structure, civil law tends to emphasize compensating individuals/entities for the harms inflicted on them by others to restore them to their original state or even provide monetary compensation for the damages; while on the other side, criminal law emphasizes on implementing punitive measures to restore societal norms/laws and to deter from criminal activities by providing rehabilitative measures (Binder, 2016; Watkin, 2017). However, there are several possibilities where a single act can be both civil and criminal liability, but these two types of wrongs are treated separately because of different standards of proof, wherein civil cases demand a preponderance of the evidence, while criminal cases demand higher standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt, this underlying difference reflects varied consequence; secondly, different remedies for both, like civil cases usually incline towards monetary remedies, while criminal cases inclines towards imprisonment, fines or other forms of punitive measures (Binder, 2016; Watkin, 2017). Although there are several factors that could interplay, I would like to incline towards stating that - a wrongdoer can be held liable for both civil and criminal wrongs for the same incident (dual liability); for instance if a person who assaults another by breaking into their private property-is also subjected to the civil case for the damage caused; wherein dual liability tends to serve both the purposes, that impose punitive measures, deter criminal activities, and compensate victims losses - all ensuring equitable justice and accountability (Binder, 2016; Watkin, 2017). In terms of the excuse of mistake or lack of intent revolves around the intent of the offender, but the validity depends on applicable law and what case it relates to; wherein within the scope of civil law, where in negligence, if often utilized, which occurs when a person fails to exercise reasonable care, in scenario they did not intend to cause harm - for instance, if a driver while rushing for a medical emergency of a close relative inflict or causes an accident will be held liable for damage, even if the intent was not to cause harm, meaning the intent to cause harm or not, do not apply for civil liabilities; while within the criminal law scope where there is exceptions like strict liability crimes, the defendant (driver) will be held liable even if the intent is not to commit a crime like, for instance, selling adulterated food falls under strict liability crime and will be held liable even if they aren't aware about selling adulterated food (Binder, 2016; Watkin, 2017). So, both excuses of mistake or intent are dynamic in nature depending on the cases, applicable laws, nature of inflicted damage/harm and validity of proof/evidence. According to understanding from strict liabilities were initially imposed for abnormal (dangerous) activities like caging wild animals or housing explosives, but it was eventually amended to regulate manufacturing sectors from defectively manufacturing everyday use products (product liability) despite their fault (bleak scope for manufacturer to prove their negligence) because of consumer blinded sided purchase without knowing if it will be defective or no; in the long run, this depicts a pathway to excessive liability for manufacturers and sellers, hampering the scope of innovation and investment in the product development (Morrison, 1996). References Binder, G. (2016). Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. Morrison, A. B. (Ed.). (1996). Fundamentals of American law. Oxford University Press. Watkin, T. G. (2017). An historical introduction to modern civil law. Routledge.More Articles From Business Management
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
