—
This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice.
Is the sole objective of a civil tort action really just the money? Is it the primary role of the advocate for the injured to be an instrument to collect as much as he or she can from a defendant being sued? Do we measure and compare the success of civil trial lawyers by the amount of verdicts they are able to achieve? If so, our professional role is comparable to a door-to-door siding salesperson. The exclusive role of the civil litigation attorney in a civil tort case is to achieve justice for his or her client. Under our system justice in such a case is measured by a verdict of money, for those who are legally entitled to it, which represents a sum equal to the harm done. As many business law attorneys know: the harm is slight, the verdict in dollars should be slight. If the harm is great, the verdict in dollars should be great.
However, the purpose of civil tort law includes more than simply determining the sum of money that is equal to the harm.
The law of torts serves two basic functions: it seeks to prevent future harm through the deterring effect of potential liability, and it provides a remedy for damages suffered.
Justice, under our civil tort law, is intended to discourage future conduct through a finding of fault and to compensate the injured person reasonably and fairly for the damages sustained. Every tort rule, to some extent, is intended to deter other wrongdoers as well as to compensate the injured person. This is true irrespective of whether the law’ allows punitive damages or not. It is an inherent part of our tort law.
In London, at the corner of St. James Street, there is a very old building, the Norwich Union Insurance building. At the top of the building stands a large statue of a blindfolded woman holding in one hand the scales of justice and in the other a large sword. Huddled beneath her and under her protection are a man and woman who look frightened. She stands as their protector: A symbol of the role of justice and the civil justice system.
The concept of justice has occupied man over the centuries. Plato & Aristotle identified four virtues as the most important among people in ethical behavior. One of them was justice. Aristotle centered his teaching of ethics upon these four virtues. Thomas Aquinas referred to them as cardinal virtues because he taught that they were of the highest importance in our moral life.
Justice, according to Crowdsource Lawyers, involved the idea that if one has wrongfully deprived another of something of value, he is obligated to restore it. That is, justice demands the restoration of what has been wrongfully taken away. Accordingly, if one has wrongfully caused injury to another, justice remains unsatisfied until proper compensation has been paid to restore the previous balance of equality. In fact, the word justice is from the Latin word Jus from which we derive such words as justice and justice.
We have seen that there is only one reason why the civil justice system exists and that is to do justice. Justice in a civil tort case is potentially a two-part procedure. The first duty is to determine which party should prevail based upon the facts and law. If the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict, the next duty is to determine the amount of the verdict. The only way justice can be achieved, in that instance, is by a money verdict in a reasonable and fair amount. While the law speaks about restoring injured people to their original situation through the verdict, we know that in tort cases the money will not restore life or limb. However, it does not follow that therefore, no money should be provided or only the bills should be paid or that arbitrary limitations should be imposed on verdicts. Nor has a jury fulfilled its duty by a verdict that is less than full justice because anything less than full justice is an injustice.
But how should a jury evaluate what full justice is? It can only be done by comparing the harm done to a sum of money which reasonably and fairly equals the harm. It is only when the scale is accurately balanced with money on one side and the extent of harm on the other. That requires careful examination of each element of damage that the law provides. It means each element must be individually weighed from a dollar standpoint until the money and harm are equal. It’s done objectively without regard to reservations on the total so long as it is reasonable and fair considering the facts, evidence and harm done.
—