Most of the cases in the civil courts are either Breach of Contract or Negligence so its important to get these right from a Biblical Perspective
Ex 21:28-29 Shows that negligence is limited in Biblical law by the extent of the person's knowledge If he could reasonably have known the ox would gore then he is liable up to death where death has resulted or more commonly the loss of most of his property, if he could not know then he is not. If he is liable the penalty is whatever the damages are Ex 21: 33-34 If he could not have reasonably forseen the event then the damages are split between them (this is important as it is a point of departure from English law where if the damage can't be reasonably foreseen then there is no call for the plaintif to pay anything. English Law Unintentional damage is sometimes Negligence
(1) Duty of care,: ie you can be as negligent as you like if you have no duty to the other person
Is usually considered that which an ordinary person would show. People selling guns for example are expected to show a greater amount of care (2) Breach of Duty
(3) Resultant damage
Donoghue v Stevenson : manufacturer has duty of care to consumer( snail in ginger beer 1932)
Proximity : could the action have been reasonable foreseen , is there sufficiently close relationship between the two.
Bolton vs Stone 1951 : Not liable for striking passer by with cricket ball, couldn't have been reasonably foreseen , very unlikely to hit ball out of ground.
Rule : must take your victim as you find him
Haley vs Electrcity board : carried out repairs on road without allowing for blind pedestrians, one fell and became deaf. Court heard could have been reasonably foreseen.
Similar cases for old and young children
Rule : cost and practicality
Company had carried out all reasonable precautions
Skilled persons: judged on the basis of what you as a skilled person would be expected to know Doctor judged not liable for paralysis as he had no way of knowing there was storage fluid in the vial
Damages only allowed if they would not have occurred "but for" the defendants action.
Case : water mains burst, house vacated, squaters moved in. Water co not liable for squatters actions as they couldn't reasonable have foreseen , it wasn't likely and there was no duty of care to prevent squatters
If the plaintiff himself aggrevates the situation then there is no case.
The most commonly used duty of care is that for fellow travellers on the roads. Employers have a duty of care to employees for their safety ( as do householders ) Cf Biblical injunction to build fence round roof ( no need for any Health and Safety Executive) Carriers are deemed to have a duty of care to passengers regardless of any contract. ( Without responsiblity only holds if it is deemed to be reasonable) Damages now seen to include emotional damage to mothers whose children are injured in an accident ( this perhaps seems to go a bit far and also very difficult to quantify) Before 1945 the defendant could avoid negligence by proving that the act could not have occured without the plaintif's contibutory negligence. Nowadays its done on a % basis. Note the Biblical law if there was no liability then they went 50/50 so if there the action could have been reasonably foreseen ( 100% to the defendent) but it was partly his fault then this seems like a good rule Novus Actus Intervenius ( New Action Intervening) A at a market fair throws a firework to B who throws in to C who is injured. A is liable to C and not B because B did what he reasonably could have done in the heat of the moment, so not contributory negligence (Scott vs Shepherd 1773) If a person jumps from a coach that seems to be going to overturn and it doesn't he can still claim for injuries, no contrib negli ( Jones vs Boyce 1816) Contributory negligence: not wearing a seatbelt when crashed into (reduced 25%) Froom vs Butcher(1976) ______________________________________________________________________________ LEGAL ISSUES
The law does judge motives ; diff between man slaughter and murder
Unabomber case - 17yrs . Torts don't care if there is no bad motive.
Judiciary : how to decide who does the case , how newcomers are integrated, Make judges finable for departing from Biblical law
EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION There is no need for 2-3 eye- witnesses to convict a person but there is need for 2 or 3 forms of evidence. The word for witness is "ed" and is also used in the following scriptures : Lev 5:1 "Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known , if he does not tell it he will bear his guilt" So he doesn't need to see he may have heard the accused saying he intended to commit the act for example. Also of beasts "If it is all torn to pieces let him bring it as evidence ( the word is "ed" - witness) also Josh 24:25-27 Constitution that basisically bars all taxation and regulation
Federalist papers mention hard bargains which courts of equity would not accept even if courts of law would, under strict contract Trial by Jury "the very palladium of free government" ?- hard to corrupt both court and jury. ED in our system the man requesting it pays for it if he is found guilty Anti Trust If had it at all, the market would have to be controlled for a period of at least 3 years before any intervention was called for