What arguments would you make before a court presiding over a tort law action arising from breach of statutory provision by a pertinent duty bearer defendant to persuade the court to find that the relevant plaintiff could still have a cause of action in tort although the concerned statute does not make a provision for such causes of action arising from a breach of any of the legal obligations it creates.
Answers
Explanation:
tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong[1] (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
Tort law involves claims in an action seeking to obtain a private civil remedy, typically money damages. Tort claims may be compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. A wrongful act, such as an assault and battery, may result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution, although in the U.S., the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which also provides civil remedies after breach of duty that arises from a contract; but whereas the contractual obligation is one agreed to by the parties, obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.[citation needed] In both contract and tort, successful claimants must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty