The Law- Tort Cases

I agree with the statement “Everyday life is fraught with risks. It is not the function of law to shield us from those risks. Thus, protecting the ‘innocent’ should have no part in the resolution of contract or tort cases.” Everyday there are cases where the ‘innocent’ are protected, whether real or perceived, by the law. I am arguing that protecting innocence is not a compelling dynamic in determining tort and contract cases and is altogether a separate interest in the assigning legal liability. It is not directly the duty of contract and tort law to protect innocence but rather it is the duty of the law to assign a justified extent of legal liability to an ‘innocent’ party.
The question I would first like to introduce is how does one define ‘innocent’ in terms of law? ‘Innocent’ by definition means free from moral wrong, not involving evil intent or motive. Take for example Escola v. Coca Cola, both parties involved in this civil dispute do not have evil intent or evil motives and are by definition both ‘innocent’. Accidents happen and people are victimized everyday, the question here is not deciphering the innocent party from the guilty party but rather which party is liable for the damages imposed. The liability in this case was assigned to Coca Cola due to their failure to manufacture their product in a condition of safe resell value. The point I am trying to establish is that failure to fulfill an obligation is not grounds to determine guilt from innocence, but rather grounds to determine legal accountability from unaccountability. Legal accountability for the goods and service’s a business produces is an unforeseeable risk factor that all businesses adopt as a cost of continuing operations. I would argue that protecting innocence is not an overly compelling dynamic in determining tort cases and is altogether a separate interest in the assigning of legal liability. In this case, both parties involved in this tort matter are by definition ‘innocent’. It’s not the duty of the law to protect this innocence but rather to justify the assignment of legal liability to an ‘innocent’ party.
When looking at the famous Harold v. Rolling “J” Ranch, this tort case has a different outcome but the same logic applies. Both parties in this case are by definition ‘innocent’, people ride horses and people get bucked off that’s the nature of riding an animal. It can be argued that it is the responsibility of the Rolling “J” Ranch to insure the safety of its riders, yes I agree but only to a certain extent. This case is different because you cannot blame a horse for being a horse, but the business can however discontinue the employment of that horse as they see fit. Again both parties involved in this tort matter are, by definition, ‘innocent’ therefore it’s not directly the duty of the law to protect innocence but rather assign some extent of legal liability to an ‘innocent’ party.
When looking at contract law I apply my same logic that I previously established. By definition a contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy. The case Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company deals with the element of contractual unconscionability. The contract was entered into with terms that unreasonably favored Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. It is apparent in this extension-of-credit contract that Williams was the ‘innocent’ party, however the innocence of Walker-Thomas Furniture Company is extremely questionable. Some might argue that the law was protecting the innocence of Williams, I would however argue that the law ruled in all fairness in light of “an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties” (Skelly Wright). In a normal contract with a mutually understood exchange of promises, both parties would be ‘innocent’ by definition. However this was not a mutually exclusive contract. Since this contract was entered into with little or no bargaining power and no real objective knowledge of the terms, the contractual consent at inception was decided to never legally have been given. Therefore from my point of argument since both parties were not ‘innocent’ by definition the contract never legally existed. If both parties involved in this contract were ‘innocent’ it would then become the duty of the law to assign some legal liability to an ‘innocent’ party. The extent of the liability then becomes a function of the courts decision.
Prior to taking this class I would have argued that the main function of the law was to protect the innocence of the citizens in which it governs. I would have disagreed with the statement above. After digging much deeper throughout this quarter it has become apparent to me that the function of tort and contract law is to moderate the allocation of legal responsibility rather than merely shield us from everyday risks.