Editing Tort (section)

==Comparison with other areas of law==
Tort law is closely related to other areas of law, particularly contract and criminal law. On one hand, tort and contract law are typically regarded as the two primary fields within the [[law of obligations]], with tort forming a catch-all category encompassing civil wrongs that arise by operation of law in contrast to [[breach of contract]], which encompasses violations of obligations that are [[freedom of contract|freely assumed]] by parties to a contract. On the other hand, both tort and criminal law aim to address wrongful conduct and often overlap such that conduct which gives rise to a claim under tort law may also give rise to a prosecution under criminal law.

===Contract law===
{{Further|#Business torts}}

Tort is sometimes viewed as the causes of action which are not defined in other areas such as contract or [[fiduciary]] law.<ref name=Harpwood>Harpwood V. (2009). [http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf Modern Tort Law, 7th Edition] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130615111031/http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf |date=15 June 2013 }}. Routledge. [http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf Ch. 1 available as sample] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130615111031/http://www.routledgelaw.com/textbooks/9780415458467/downloads/sample.pdf |date=15 June 2013 }}     .</ref> However, tort and contract law are similar in that both involve a breach of duties, and in modern law these duties have blurred<ref name=Harpwood/> and it may not be clear whether an action "[[wiktionary:sound|sounds]] in tort or contract"; if both apply and different standards apply for each (such as a [[statute of limitations]]), courts will determine which is the "[[gravamen]]" (the most applicable). Circumstances such as those involving professional negligence<ref name=Harpwood/> may involve both torts and contracts. The choice may affect time limits or damages, particularly given that damages are typically relatively limited in contract cases while in tort cases noneconomic [[damages]] such as [[pain and suffering]] may be awarded.<ref name=Harpwood/> [[Punitive damage]]s are relatively uncommon in contractual cases versus tort cases.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sullivan|first=Timothy J.|date=1976|title=Punitive damages in the law of contract: the reality and the illusion of legal change.|url=http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpubs|journal=Minnesota Law Review|volume=61|pages=207|url-status=bot: unknown|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171216042004/http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=facpubs|archive-date=16 December 2017}}</ref> However, compensation for defective but not unsafe products is typically available only through contractual actions<ref name=Harpwood/> through the law of [[warranty]].

In the United Kingdom, plaintiffs in professional negligence cases have some degree of choice in which law while in commercial transactions contract law applies; in unusual cases, intangible losses have been awarded in contract law cases.<ref name=Harpwood/>

The English case [[Hadley v Baxendale|''Hadley v. Baxendale'']] (1854), which was adopted in the United States, split contract and tort damages by foreseeability of the damages when the contract was made.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanbar.org/publications/under_construction/2016/winter2016/economic_loss_rule.html|title=A "Simple" Explanation of the Economic-Loss Rule {{!}} Forum on the Construction Industry|website=www.americanbar.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506124315/http://www.americanbar.org/publications/under_construction/2016/winter2016/economic_loss_rule.html|archive-date=6 May 2017|url-status=dead|access-date=25 March 2018}}</ref> In the United States, the [[pure economic loss]] rule was adopted to further prevent negligence lawsuits in breach of contract cases.<ref name=":1" /> This "economic loss rule" was adopted by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ''East River Steamship Corp V Transamerica Delaval Inc.'' (1986) and expanded across the country in a non-uniform manner, leading to confusion.<ref name=":0" /> Among other examples, the tort of [[insurance bad faith]] arises out of a contractual relationship, and "collateral torts" such as [[wrongful dismissal]] involving possible overlap with [[labour law]] contracts.<ref name=Gergen/>

===Criminal law===
There is some overlap between criminal law and tort. For example, in [[English law]] an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of [[Trespass|trespass to the person]]). A tort allows a person to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example, the payment of [[damages]] or the obtaining of [[injunctive relief]]). Criminal actions on the other hand are pursued not to obtain remedies to assist a person{{spaced ndash}}although often criminal courts do have the power to grant such remedies{{spaced ndash}}but to remove their liberty on the state's behalf. This explains why [[incarceration]] is usually available as a penalty for serious crimes, but not usually for torts. In early common law, the distinction between crime and tort was not distinct.<ref>Simmons KW. (2007). [http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Crim_Torts_Distinction.pdf The Crime/Tort Distinction: Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives]. ''Widener Law Review''.</ref>

The more severe penalties available in criminal law also mean that it requires a higher [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] to be discharged than the related tort. As with other areas of private law, the [[Burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] required in tort, known either as the 'balance of probabilities' in English common law or 'preponderance of evidence' in American law, is lower than the higher standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Sometimes a claimant may prevail in a tort case even if the defendant who allegedly caused harm were acquitted in an earlier criminal trial. For example, [[O. J. Simpson]] was acquitted in the criminal court of murder but later found liable for the tort of [[wrongful death]].<ref>''Rufo v. Simpson'', [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA4/86CA4t573.htm 86 Cal. App. 4th 573] (2001).</ref>

Both tort law and criminal law may impose liability where there is [[Intention in English law|intentional action]], [[Recklessness (law)|reckless behaviour]], [[negligence|carelessness]], [[product liability]] without negligence (in the US and the EU), innocence, provided there is [[strict liability]], [[Battery (crime)|battery]], [[assault]] or [[Trespass to land|trespass]].

Under [[Tort law in India|Indian tort law]] and in other jurisdictions which adopted a version of the 1860 [[Indian Penal Code]], the torts of assault and battery are interpreted with reference to equivalent criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code.<ref name="auto"/>