Liability in Jurisprudence

Liability results from a law violation; laws lay down the rights and duties of the individual. The law awards legal rights to one individual and imposes the duty upon another person. A person should not infringe on the legal rights of others if anyone violates their legal rights. He is said to have committed a wrong; if there is a wrong, there is a liability. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Definition of Liability Jurisprudence

Defining liabilities in jurisprudence is difficult or, moreover, not possible to define in certain ways, but still, some jurists give it some definition.

• Sir John Salmond

Sir John Salmond defines Liability as the result of a violation of law and responsibility in the bond of necessity between the wrongdoer and injury by the act.

• Markby

Markby defines 'liability' as the condition of a person who must perform, whether that duty is a primary or a secondary or sanctioning one.

• Austin

Austin says 'imputability' instead of 'liability.' According to him, those certain for bearings, commissions, or acts, together with such consequences, as it was the purpose of the duties to avert, are imputability to the person who has forborne omitted or acted.

Download 5 Key takeaways on Liability in Jurisprudence PDF

There are different kinds of Liability in jurisprudence, such as civil Liability. Criminal and other is Vicarious Liability here. Vicarious is sub-defined as an absolute or strict organizational liability.

Civil Liability

Civil Liability arises when the defendant violates the plaintiff's right, which gives rise to civil proceedings for compensation of legal damages against the defendant. It is a non-criminal liability in nature. The goal of imposing Liability on the defendant person in court is to protect the rights of the plaintiff. There are many examples, like recovery of many and the performance of duty in a specific manner.

The motive for imposing Liability on the defendant in court is to protect the injured person's rights. I followed some examples, like the recovery of money and the performance of duty in a certain way.

Criminal Liability

Criminal Liability means imposing liability purposes or breaking laws set by the government. Criminal offences can be against society or individuals. In criminal cases, the government proceeds through prosecutors in courts. If any person committing crimes will face penalties. Punishment can include fines and imprisonment, which are awarded to the wrongdoer. In criminal Liability, the offender is punished for the intention of committing the offence.

Vicarious Liability

This means a liability incurred for or instead of another; generally, a person becomes liable for a tort committed by another such liability.

There are 3 exceptions to the general rule that man must be forced to do by the force of law. What is he bound to do by the rule of law?

• Absolute or strict liability

Both in civil and criminal law, mens rea or guilty mind is considered necessary to hold a person liable. However, there are some exceptions to the general rule. In those cases, a person is held responsible irrespective of wrongful intent or negligence.

• Liability in corporation

Organizational Liability can be civil or even criminal as directors' and members' actions can lead them; previously, we only believed that a corporation had a minimal set of liabilities in most cases.

The differences between civil Liability and criminal Liability are as follows: respectively.

• Nature of the Wrong: A Crime is considered a wrong against society, while a civil wrong is a wrong against an individual or individuals.
• Remedy: Criminal offences are rectified through punishment, whereas civil wrongs are remedied through damages.
• Procedure: Criminal proceedings imply criminal cases, while civil proceedings are employed for civil wrongs and occur in separate courts.

Remedial Liability Explained

Remedial Liability is based on the maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium," which means that when there is a right, there must be some remedy. The force of law can be used to compel a person to do what he ought to do under the country's law. If the violation of a right causes an injury, the same can be remedied by compelling the person to comply with it.

Exceptions to this rule include:

• Duties of Imperfect Obligation: Certain legal duties are known by law but can't be enforced due to time-barred Liability, which is valid but cannot be paid legally.
• Duties That Cannot Be Specifically Enforced: There are duties that, once broken, cannot be specifically enforced. For instance, in cases of completed assault, the defendant cannot be made to undo the act.
• Award compensation: a duty needs to be performed; the law imposed damages to give the plaintiff instead of enforcing that duty. For example, if a contract includes personal services, the law can't force someone to perform. Instead, it may award damages under the Specific Relief Act.

Penal Liability

Penal Liability is concerned with the punishment of wrong. There are different kinds of punishment: deterrent, preventive, retributive, reformative, etc. A penal liability can arise either from a criminal or civil wrong. The conditions of penal Liability are expressed in the maxim "Actus non facit reum nisi sit rea," which means an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind. Two things are required to be considered in this connection: Act or Means Rea.

• Act (Actus Reus): Actus Reus is a result of conduct. For example, in the case of murder, death is an actus reus or result of the conduct and not the physical act of killing a person. Therefore, the result needs to be examined to see the actus Reus. Actus is a consequence, and human conduct should not be voluntary.
• Mens Rea: Mens rea is a Latin term that means guilty mind or a culpable condition of the mind. It is a second condition usually required for Liability in a tort.

In the development of tort, the Latin maxim "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" provides there is no guilt or wrong in the absence of a guilty mind. So, if a person is liable for tort, he should have a guilty mind.

Salmond, however, narrows it down to just two mental attitudes: intention and recklessness. Essentially, a person can be held liable for a wrongful act only if they do it willfully (intentionally) or recklessly. Sometimes, inadvertent negligence can also lead to Liability in jurisprudence. However, for someone to be held criminally liable, their actions must align with one of these mental attitudes.

Conclusion

Liability in jurisprudence involves the outcomes and responsibility for violating someone's legal rights and obligations, whether civil or criminal. The concept of fundamental rights is part of the law, or it is a motive of the law to protect basic rights. The nature of liabilities wholly depends on wrongdoers, such as civil law, liabilities that involve compensating for injury through monetary damages, and criminal law, which leads to punishment, as mentioned in statutes of law.