TORT IMMUNITY

Tort Immunity

Table of Content

Tort Immunity3

Introduction3

Discussion4

Policy making in general5

Deciding what others should do versus deciding what agent herself should do?5

Command and control6

Federal Tort Claims Act: discretionary actions as multitask agent actions7

Absolute immunity for legislators and for the US President8

Exceptions on absolute immunity for the President of the US8

Absolute immunity is the exception9

Judges: absolute immunity in the US, weaker immunity in civil law countries10

Qualified immunity of police officers as a double check against legal uncertainty10

Firefighter immunity11

Volunteer and charitable immunity11

Medical malpractice: custom as a defense12

Conclusion13

Endnotes15

Tort Immunity

Introduction

The purpose of this research paper is to examine the idea of individuals being completely immune from tort liability. Under principles of tort law, persons are sometimes, but not always, held liable for conduct that causes others to suffer personal injuries, property damage, or impairment of legally valuable relationships. In general, compensation for a particular type of harm is governed by tort law (mandatory obligations imposed by the rules of society) rather than by contract principles (obligations voluntarily assumed by the parties or supplied by default rules) if the market does not offer a viable mechanism for the parties to allocate the risks of loss. From an economic perspective, tort law is concerned with promoting optimal investment in safety and minimizing the costs of accidents. The rules of tort law that determine whether liability is imposed and how extensively damages are assessed have important economic consequences. By requiring actors to bear the costs of resulting harm, or exempting them from that duty, tort law affects the types of activities persons engage in and the precautions they employ to avoid causing harm.

Government immunity, also known as Sovereign Immunity, insulates federal, state, and local governments from liability for torts that an employee commits within the scope of his or her official duties. Public policy, as reflected by legislation, common-law precedent, and popular opinion, has required courts to protect the government from unnecessary disruptions that invariably result from civil litigation. Similarly, educational institutions generally have been immunized from tort actions to protect students and faculty from distraction. Over the last quarter century, nearly every jurisdiction has curtailed tort immunity in some fashion. Several jurisdictions have abolished tort immunity for entire groups and entities. The movement to restrict tort immunity has been based in part on the rule of law, which requires all persons, organizations, and government officials to be treated equally under the law. Despite the efforts of this movement, tort immunity persists in various forms at the federal, state, and local levels. This thesis focus on the following research questions:

Should anyone ever immune from tort liability?

What circumstances support immunity from tort liability?

What circumstances prevent tort liability?

Should evidence seized from warrantless search be admissible?

Discussion Before discussing the details of immunity, it is important to explain a central insight—that policy-making (broadly defined) and other 'discretionary decisions' that officials make are activities with multitask agent characteristics. We explain, in other words why our model also captures the situation of legislators, presidents, judges, and many other ...