NJIKO: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Humanities, Law, Education and Social Sciences

Tort law provides individuals or groups redress for wrongful harm to every dimension of life from personal insult, physical injury to property damage. This study's objective is to appraise Oliver W. Holmes' concept of tort liability. The problem that warrants this study is to determine what should be the ideal purpose of tort liability. Significantly, this study will help individuals who find themselves as plaintiffs or defendants in tortious acts to truly understand the situation and handle it properly. This study's method is analysis. Research findings reveal that, in almost every judicial system, courts adhere to the agedlong Holmesian traditional regulatory scheme of deterrence and compensation. Judges in modern times have not really built upon these ways of approach to torts. In conclusion, the study submits that tort law should not be merely a matter of the state ordering defendants in tortious acts to make amends on debts – liability, repair or compensation – to the victim, despite the fact that most tort plaintiffs are, as might be expected, given damages meant to make indemnifications for their losses or injuries sustained. Primarily, it should be about fortifying or strengthening victims with the legal power to pursue those who have wronged or treated them unjustly. So, tort enables victims inculcate in the minds of culprits that laws are standards for good conducts. It is not entirely for compensation or deterrence, but also to call to the mind of the perpetrator of tortious act that laws are touchstones for his/her action. This does not equate tort with vengeance, rather, it is to appreciate that tort is a refined, civilized and polite alternative to vengeance – a civil resort for plaintiffs, and properly channeled through and cabined by law.

Open Full Text (PDF)