GrittySam
September 27th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Every clause in the tort law deals with the violation of legal rights of another person. Such a violation may be the result of deliberate intention e.g. an assault or culpable negligence where the foresight of the consequences is present though it is not desired. E.g. the reckless driving in a crowded street.
The fundamental principle of criminal law is contained in the maxim actus non facit reum mens sit rea e.g., the act itself creates no guilty mind. The reason for this is not far to seek. The ultimate aim of law is to prevent a crime by punishing the doer of it. It is clear that it is useless to punish a man unless he did the wrongful act with a guilty mind.
Under criminal law mens rea, a guilty mind is an important element for punishing a man who has committed a crime. Here the moot question is to analyze as to how far the mental element was an essential element in determining the tortuous liability. In doing any wrongful act generally the three stages of human mind namely the motive, intention and malice get involved.
Confusing interpretations of the mental element in tort was rampant in many courts in Texas. The main reason for such a situation was the confusing nature of some of the tort laws. The Texans for Lawsuit Reform through consistent efforts could affect a major change in the tort laws in Texas. Its founder Richard Weekley (http://www.qolhouston.org/) by rallying together a majority of the people could spark a wide debate on the issue. Today Texas is a role model for other states in the U.S in law reform.
The fundamental principle of criminal law is contained in the maxim actus non facit reum mens sit rea e.g., the act itself creates no guilty mind. The reason for this is not far to seek. The ultimate aim of law is to prevent a crime by punishing the doer of it. It is clear that it is useless to punish a man unless he did the wrongful act with a guilty mind.
Under criminal law mens rea, a guilty mind is an important element for punishing a man who has committed a crime. Here the moot question is to analyze as to how far the mental element was an essential element in determining the tortuous liability. In doing any wrongful act generally the three stages of human mind namely the motive, intention and malice get involved.
Confusing interpretations of the mental element in tort was rampant in many courts in Texas. The main reason for such a situation was the confusing nature of some of the tort laws. The Texans for Lawsuit Reform through consistent efforts could affect a major change in the tort laws in Texas. Its founder Richard Weekley (http://www.qolhouston.org/) by rallying together a majority of the people could spark a wide debate on the issue. Today Texas is a role model for other states in the U.S in law reform.