My assessment of the current civil law system is that it is too rigid and outdated. Civil law is dependent on precedents and judges depend on the precedent cases when deciding cases. I think that the use of precedents (World Bank Group, 2016) is very inflexible and rigid because of time and changes that have happened. For instance, a precedent set in the 1850 might not be applicable more than two centuries later. A lot has changed such as technological changes, lifestyles, and way of living among other changes. Therefore, I consider the civil law to have been overtaken by time.
I concur with critics that reform on the current civil law system is needed. Tort law might result in the miscarriage of justice because of inefficiently apportioning liability since each case is unique (Cross, 2011). For instance, there is contention on whether the plaintiff in a product liability case is compensated appropriately because the outcome of the case depends on the abilities of the attorney on both sides, as well as the composition of the bench. Also, there is a tendency by large companies who have experience with the tort system to manipulate the practice of settlement in a manner that favors them and allows them to evade liabilities in the future.
In the event I was given a chance to amend the tort law system, there are several changes I would make such as the abolishment of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. This law is also known as outrage. This tort law stipulates that the respondent’s conduct is so irrational that it causes emotional anguish to the plaintiff (Morgan & Morgan, 2020). Crazy behavior is so ambiguous, and i would have such law abolished because it is difficult to classify what behavior is crazy and which is not. I would change the tort system to incorporate the changes that have happened such as the changes in lifestyles and interactions as a result of advancement in technology.
I concur with critics that reform on the current civil law system is needed. Tort law might result in the miscarriage of justice because of inefficiently apportioning liability since each case is unique (Cross, 2011). For instance, there is contention on whether the plaintiff in a product liability case is compensated appropriately because the outcome of the case depends on the abilities of the attorney on both sides, as well as the composition of the bench. Also, there is a tendency by large companies who have experience with the tort system to manipulate the practice of settlement in a manner that favors them and allows them to evade liabilities in the future.
In the event I was given a chance to amend the tort law system, there are several changes I would make such as the abolishment of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. This law is also known as outrage. This tort law stipulates that the respondent’s conduct is so irrational that it causes emotional anguish to the plaintiff (Morgan & Morgan, 2020). Crazy behavior is so ambiguous, and i would have such law abolished because it is difficult to classify what behavior is crazy and which is not. I would change the tort system to incorporate the changes that have happened such as the changes in lifestyles and interactions as a result of advancement in technology.
