TORTS.-- TRESPASS AND NEGLIGENCE.
The object of the next two Lectures is to discover whether there is any common ground at the bottom of all liability in tort, and if so, what that ground is.Supposing the attempt to succeed, it will reveal the general principle of civil liability at common law.The liabilities incurred by way of contract are more or less expressly fixed by the agreement of the parties concerned, but those arising from a tort are independent of any previous consent of the wrong-doer to bear the loss occasioned by his act.If Afails to pay a certain sum on a certain day, or to deliver a lecture on a certain night, after having made a binding promise to do so, the damages which he has to pay are recovered in accordance with his consent that some or all of the harms which may be caused by his failure shall fall upon him.But when Aassaults or slanders his neighbor, or converts his neighbor's property, he does a harm which he has never consented to bear, and if the law makes him pay for it, the reason for doing so must be found in some general view of the conduct which every one may fairly expect and demand from every other, whether that other has agreed to it or not.
Such a general view is very hard to find.The law did not begin with a theory.It has never worked one out.The point from which it started and that at which I shall try to show that it has arrived, are on different planes.In the progress from one to the other, it is to be expected that its course should not be straight and its direction not always visible.All that can be done is to point out a tendency, and to justify it.The tendency, which is our main concern, is a matter of fact to be gathered from the cases.But the difficulty of showing it is much enhanced by the circumstance that, until lately, the substantive law has been approached only through the categories of the forms of action.Discussions of legislative principle have been darkened by arguments on the limits between trespass and case, or on the scope of a general issue.In place of a theory of tort, we have a theory of trespass.And even within that narrower limit, precedents of the time of the assize and jurata have been applied without a thought of their connection with a long forgotten procedure.
Since the ancient forms of action have disappeared, a broader treatment of the subject ought to be possible.Ignorance is the best of law reformers.People are glad to discuss a question on general principles, when they have forgotten the special knowledge necessary for technical reasoning.But the present willingness to generalize is founded on more than merely negative grounds.The philosophical habit of the day, the frequency of legislation, and the ease with which the law may be changed to meet the opinions and wishes of the public, all make it natural and unavoidable that judges as well as others should openly discuss the legislative principles upon which their decisions must always rest in the end, and should base their judgments upon broad considerations of policy to which the traditions of the bench would hardly have tolerated a reference fifty years ago.
The business of the law of torts is to fix the dividing lines between those cases in which a man is liable for harm which he has done, and those in which he is not.But it cannot enable him to predict with certainty whether a given act under given circumstances will make him liable, because an act will rarely have that effect unless followed by damage, and for the most part, if not always, the consequences of an act are not known, but only guessed at as more or less probable.All the rules that the law can lay down beforehand are rules for determining the conduct which will be followed by liability if it is followed by harm--that is, the conduct which a man pursues at his peril.The only guide for the future to be drawn from a decision against a defendant in an action of tort is that similar acts, under circumstances which cannot be distinguished except by the result from those of the defendant, are done at the peril of the actor;that if he escapes liability, it is simply because by good fortune no harm comes of his conduct in the particular event.
If, therefore, there is any common ground for all liability in tort, we shall best find it by eliminating the event as it actually turns out, and by considering only the principles on which the peril of his conduct is thrown upon the actor.We are to ask what are the elements, on the defendant's side, which must all be present before liability is possible, and the presence of which will commonly make him liable if damage follows.
The law of torts abounds in moral phraseology.It has much to say of wrongs, of malice, fraud, intent, and negligence.Hence it may naturally be supposed that the risk of a man's conduct is thrown upon him as the result of some moral short-coming.But while this notion has been entertained, the extreme opposite will be found to have been a far more popular opinion;--I mean the notion that a man is answerable for all the consequences of his acts, or, in other words, that he acts at his peril always, and wholly irrespective of the state of his consciousness upon the matter.
To test the former opinion it would be natural to take up successively the several words, such as negligence and intent, which in the language of morals designate various well-understood states of mind, and to show their significance in the law.To test the latter, it would perhaps be more convenient to consider it under the head of the several forms of action.So many of our authorities are decisions under one or another of these forms, that it will not be safe to neglect them, at least in the first instance; and a compromise between the two modes of approaching the subject may be reached by beginning with the action of trespass and the notion of negligence together, leaving wrongs which are defined as intentional for the next Lecture.
Trespass lies for unintentional, as well as for intended wrongs.
