Re: What does "cause of action in tort" mean?
dawnmarie wrote:If someone could help me, I would appriciate it.
Idle v. City Co- a 1980 decision by the highest court of state A where the court created a cause of action in tort for the wrongful destruction of business records. The court ruled that a cause of action exists if the records were destroyed in anticipation of or while a workers' compensation claim was pending. The court also held that a cause of action exists if the destruction was intentional or negligent.
A 1989 state A statute- a law passed by the legistature of state A that created a cause of action in tort for the intentional destruction of vusiness records. The statute provides that a cause of action exists if the destruction occurs in anticipation of or while a workers' compensation claim is pending.
What does "cause of action in tort" mean, exactly, in each case?
A "cause of action" is a legally cognizable claim that a plaintiff may bring against a defendant. A "tort" is a civil wrong.
Quote:In the first case, does it mean that there already was a tort law in place that the judge used for his ruling? Was there already precedence set?
The 1980 case entitled Idle v. City Co. was a case wherein the court determined an issue of first impression. This was the first time that the court recognized the existence of the tort of intentional or negligent destruction of business records. There was no prior precedent. Idle v. City Co. established "case law" that serves as primary authority and as a precedent for subsequent cases involving intentional and negligent destruction of business records.
However, the legislature enacted a statute nine years later in 1989. The statute only recognizes a cause of action in tort for
intentional destruction of business records. The later statute supercedes prior case law. Therefore, by enacting the statute, the legislature has effectively abolished the tort of
negligent destruction of business records.
In other words, in cases arising after the effective date of the statute (in 1989), the courts of state A will no longer recognize the mere negligent destruction as a legally cognizable claim. A defendant's mere negligence is not enough to establish a claim. The plaintiff must prove intentional destruction.
Quote:Would Idle v. City Co. be a primary authority that could be used in a preceding [sic] [should be in subsequent] court case[s] in the same situation, or not, because of the enacted law by legislation a year later?
Idle v. City Co. would be primary authority from the time the case was decided (in 1980) until it was superceded by statute (in 1989). The case can still be cited, however, as authority for its legal reasoning or guidelines as applied to the tort of
intentional destruction of business records.
Quote:It sounds like legislation took the tort law of Idle V. City Co. and enacted legislation by it. Would that allow the case to be used in other court cases, since it is sounds the same as the enacted law a year later? Or could it not be legally used because there is now an enacted law on the same subject?
As noted previously, the "case law" was superceded by "statutory law." The state no longer recognizes the tort of negligent destruction; The state only recognizes the tort of intentional destruction. Therefore, Idle v. City Co. can only be used as authority in subsequent cases concerning the issue of INTENTIONAL destruction of business records.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace