Editing Tort (section)

=== Liability ===
While individuals and corporations are typically only liable for their own actions, [[indirect liability]] for the tortious acts of others may arise by operation of law, notably through [[joint and several liability]] doctrines as well as forms of [[secondary liability]]. Liability may arise through [[enterprise liability]] or, in product liability cases in the United States, [[market share liability]]. In certain cases, a person might hold [[vicarious liability]] for their employee or child under the [[law of agency]] through the doctrine of [[respondeat superior]]. For example, if a shop employee spilled cleaning liquid on the supermarket floor and a victim fell and suffered injuries, the plaintiff might be able to sue either the employee or the employer. There is considerable academic debate about whether vicarious liability is justified on no better basis than the search for a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory of efficient risk allocation.<ref name=":2" />

[[Absolute liability]], under the rule in [[M. C. Mehta v. Union of India]], in Indian tort law is a unique outgrowth of the doctrine of [[strict liability]] for [[ultrahazardous activity|ultrahazardous activities]]. Under the precedent established in the English case of [[Rylands v Fletcher]], upon which the Indian doctrine of absolute liability is based, anyone who in the course of "non-natural" use of his land "accumulates" thereon for his own purposes anything likely to cause [[mischief]] if it escapes is answerable for all direct damage thereby caused.<ref>''Rylands v Fletcher'' (1868) LR 3 HL 330.</ref> While, in England and many other common law jurisdictions, this precedent is used to impose strict liability on certain areas of nuisance law<ref name="mark">{{citation |author=Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis |title=Markesinis and Deakin's tort law 6th ed |year=2007 |publisher=Clarendon press, Oxford}}</ref> and is strictly "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land" under which "damages for personal injuries are not recoverable",<ref>''Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council'' [2003] UKHL 61.</ref> Indian courts have developed this rule into a distinct principle of absolute liability, where an enterprise is absolutely liable, without exceptions, to compensate everyone affected by any accident resulting from the operation of hazardous activity.<ref name="mehta">''MC Mehta v Union of India'' AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case).</ref> This differs greatly from the English approach as it includes all kinds of resulting liability, rather than being limited to damage to land.<ref name="mehta" />

In New Zealand, the tort system for the majority of personal injuries was scrapped with the establishment of the [[Accident Compensation Corporation]], a universal system of [[no-fault insurance]].<ref name=Cane/> The rationale underlying New Zealand's elimination of personal injury torts was securing [[equality of treatment]] for victims regardless of whether or the extent to which they or any other party was at fault.<ref name="Atiyah TDLC8"/> This was the basis for much of Professor [[Patrick Atiyah]]'s scholarship as articulated in ''Accidents, Compensation and the Law'' (1970). Originally his proposal was the gradual abolition of tort actions, and its replacement with schemes like those for industrial injuries to cover for all illness, disability and disease, whether caused by people or nature. In addition to the development of the Accident Compensation Corporation to eliminate personal injury lawsuits, the tort system for [[medical malpractice]] was scrapped in New Zealand, both following recommendations from the Royal Commission in 1967 for 'no fault' compensation scheme (see The Woodhouse Report).<ref name="Atiyah TDLC8">P.S. Atiyah (1997) ''The Damages Lottery'', Ch.8</ref>

In the case of the United States, a survey of trial lawyers identified several modern innovations that developed after the divergence of English and American tort law, including strict liability for products based on ''Greenman v. Yuba Power Products'', the limitation of various immunities (e.g. [[sovereign immunity]], [[charitable immunity]]), [[comparative negligence]], broader rules for admitting evidence, increased damages for [[Intentional infliction of emotional distress|emotional distress]], and [[toxic tort]]s and [[class action]] lawsuits. However, there has also been a reaction in terms of [[tort reform]], which in some cases have been struck down as violating state constitutions, and federal preemption of state laws.<ref name=Top10>American Association for Justice (1996). [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Top+10+in+torts%3A+evolution+in+the+common+law.-a018526923 Top 10 in torts: evolution in the common law.].</ref>