Title: Insurance Law
(Sam is a farmer and has discovered that univited people have been coming onto his private farmland, damaging some crops and taking other crops to sell.
(a) Identify with justification three torts that may have been committed by the univited people
(b) explain briefly two appropriate remedies that may be available to sam
|Subject||Law and governance||Pages||5||Style||APA|
Torts denote civil or private injuries or wrongs, inclusive of actions in bad faith contract breaches for which the court is bound to provide remedies in form of actions for damages (Abraham, & White, 2017). The American tort law originates from the British common law system. Majority of the American tort law was established by judges over the years or positions written down in particular cases. The purpose of tort law in the USA is to redress the damages that an individual suffers as attributed to the actions of another provided it is classified under a particular care standard stipulated by the civil courts. In the case provided, Sam, a farmer, has suffered considerable damages due to trespassers on his farm who damage and steal his crops. The purpose of this paper is to identify the torts committed by the trespassers and the legal remedies that Sam may pursue.
In the case of Sam, there are multiple torts that the uninvited people may have committed according to the law. Firstly, tress to land is one of the intentional torts covered in the American tort law. Trespass to land is committed when a person or people intentionally enter the land of another individual without any lawful reason. In majority of the USA states, trespass to land is perceived as a misdemeanor. The tort of trespass to land serves to protect the interest of the individual who has possession of a particular piece of land. The qualifications for a trespass to occur legally are that there must be a definite interference with a person’s right of exclusive possession as well as intention of trespass on the part of the trespassers (Abraham, 2017). In the case of Sam, trespass definitely occurred because it has been established that the uninvited people have made repeated visits to his farm without his consent. Moreover, the fact that the land is Sam’s private farmland qualifies the case as a tort of trespass on land.
An additional tort that the uninvited people committed is negligence. Negligence denotes a failure to perform the suitable and ethically acceptable care or caution that is anticipated to be performed under certain situations. The negligence tort encompasses any harm that is done due to failure to act as attributed to carelessness under various settings (Goldberg et al., 2016). The basic conception of negligence is that individuals should demonstrate reasonable care in their acts by assessing the prospective harm that may possibly occur to property or other individuals. With particular regard to Sam’s case, uninvited people entered his private farmland and due to their careless actions and lack of reasonable foresight, caused considerable damage to his crops. A case of negligence may argue that the uninvited people should have been able to foresee the likely events that would ensue their venturing into Sam’s private farmland where he had planted his crops. Essentially, harm to property is a viable qualification the tort of negligence. Moreover, Sam incurred a pecuniary injury whereby he lost a considerable amount of his crops. Basically, Sam can prove that he incurred a loss that was reasonably predictable.
The third tort in this case is conversion. Conversion qualifies as an intentional tort. It denotes a situation whereby an individual takes something with the intention of exercising ownership that does not coincide with the right of possession of the actual owner (Henderson, 2017). An individual may maintain action for conversion of he/she has immediate possession over a piece of property. Legally, the plaintiff must prove that he/she has a right to the property as well as what is converted. The possession of private property bears the assumption of title, which allows the possessor or owner to sustain an action for conversion against other individuals. In this context, Sam either owns or possesses the farmland onto which uninvited people have been trespassing. The conversion element is identified in their taking of Sam’s crops to sell for their own benefit. Legally, Sam has ownership over the crops on his private farmland. However, the uninvited people infringe on this right by selling his crops and keeping the benefits for themselves. From a legal perspective, a conversion tort exists in this context.
There are alternate remedies that Sam may seek under tort law in this regard. Firstly, one of the appropriate remedies available to Sam is damages. The basic standard that applies in assessing an award of damages is that the plaintiff must be completely compensated for the loss he has incurred. This means that Sam is entitled to full restoration to the position that he would have enjoyed in the event that the uninvited people had not trespassed onto his land, damaged his crops, and taken some to sell for their own benefit. Payment in the form of money is the most optimal solution in this case.
In particular, Sam may claim general damages. The damages that Sam incurred as a result of the uninvited guests venturing onto his property cannot be computed with a reasonable amount of accuracy. General damage denotes the damage that is assumed to originate from torts that are actionable per se and hence, do not require to be particularly pleaded (Epstein, & Sharkey, 2016). The uninvited people damaged Sam’s crops. He suffered an unliquidated loss, which makes the form of compensation general damage. Presumably, had Sam had the chance to harvest his crops eventually and sell them for his own personal gain, he would have made some money for himself. Therefore, there is the prospect of loss of earnings involved in this case. The court may come up with an inexact estimate of the damages to Sam and instruct the trespassers to pay him.
Another appropriate remedy available to Sam is an equitable remedy in the form of injunctions. Injunctions are largely common in cases of trespass. An injunction denotes a court order that prohibits an individual or people from performing a certain act or requires an individual or people to perform a certain act (Epstein, & Sharkey, 2016). In the case of Sam, he desires that the uninvited people stop trespassing onto his private farmland. Consequently, Sam may seek a court injunction that prohibits the uninvited people from entering his farmland in the future.
Conclusively, the American tort law is established to protect the rights of people from various acts like negligence, trespassing, and conversion. In Sam’s case, the three justifiable torts that the uninvited people committed are: negligence, conversion, and trespass on land. Majority of the remedies available in tort cases are in the form of damages. Particularly, Sam may seek the remedies of damages and injunction to safeguard his interests in this case.
Abraham, K. (2017). The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic.
Abraham, K. S., & White, G. E. (2017). The Transformation of the Civil Trial and the Emergence of American Tort Law. Ariz. L. Rev., 59, 431.
Epstein, R. A., & Sharkey, C. M. (2016). Cases and materials on torts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress. Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Henderson Jr, J. A. (2017). Learned Hand’s Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence Law. Cal. L. Rev., 105, 165.