Subject : tort is often described as a civil wrong. Please comment in 300 words.

Tort is generally defined as a wrongful act or an infringement of a right leading to legal liability. It can be intentional or from carelessness (called 'negligence'). It is consequently concerned with private law and specifically wrongs which are committed in your relations with other individuals (outside the scope of contract law). Is this definition sufficient to understand this concept or should it include other aspects beyond the simple civil wrong ? It appears that tort, although limited in its subject to private relations (I) have a also a moralist aspect (II).

I.Tort as civil wrong... There is no denying that tort is a civil wrong which covers situations in which a party, injured as a result of another party wrongdoing, is entitled to a legal remedy. This judicial concept can be divided in 4 types of wrongs : negligence, nuisance, trespass and defamation. It must pointed out that in the notion of tort also appear both the idea of compensation and the idea of punishing. The idea of compensation aimed at repairing damages to property, person, goods. The idea of punishing refers to certain types of tort that are of objective responsibility where there is no need to prove either a fault or a wrong committed on the part of the defendant. It must be added that certain torts can also be prosecuted as criminal cases. This will not be studied in this paper.

II.Tort as a regulator of social life. There is a general idea that tort is more than a simple civil wrong and is, in some way, regulating social life and relations. The Mesothelioma litigation illustrates this idea (for instance : Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 2002). It concerned with a lung disease contracted by employees resulting from defaults in security instructions but also a lack of scientific knowledge. Although the causation requirement was not fulfilled in this case as no wrongdoing was really