Should Tort Laws be replaced? I believe that Tort Laws shouldn’t be replaced. I am going to tell you three reasons why I believe this. One, people who have suffered injury should be able to seek justice without restrictions. Two, negligence is an unintentional tort that involves careless or reckless action. And three, there is no real proof that the number of lawsuits has risen.

People who have suffered injury should be able to seek justice without restrictions. That goal is met by the current system. Tort suits force the injurer to reexamine and improve the safety of products and practices. The two major kings of torts: intentional and unintentional. An intentional tort is a deliberate act the harms a person or property. Slander and assault and battery are intentional torts that are tired in civil courts. An unintentional tort is doing harm without intending to but still the resulting harm was predictable. For example some kinds of practical jokes might obviously carry a risk of injuring someone.

Negligence is an unintentional tort that involves careless or reckless actions. A person is negligent when he or she fails to do something a reasonable person would have done or does something a prudent person would not have done. Leaving a sharp kitchen knife where small children could easily reach it or not having the brakes checked on an old car with high mileage are examples of negligence that could result in legal liability if someone were injured.

There is no real proof that the number of lawsuits has risen. In fact, statistics suggest that many more people suffer from medical malpractice than ever go to court – from media mislead the public by focusing on a few outlandish cases. Although the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has dropped in some states where payouts are capped, this does not prove that there were too many frivolous lawsuits. It might just mean lawyers are less willing to represent some one until they know they can back their costs – and its costs quite a bit to