The reasoning behind the view of accounting for tort liability as the economic efficiency view is that through the use of the tort system in supplementing the market forces efficiency is either improved or reduced. This isdependent on the incentives that are created for the injurers as well as the victims. Any alteration on the tort system leads to tradeoffs that seem to improve efficiency. From the economic efficiency view the tort system can only be measured by how it is able to minimize the different types of costs (Fletcher, 1992).
The corrective justice view uses the reasoning that tort law has a function of rectifying. This happens since the defendant gets the injustice he has inflicted on a plaintiff to be corrected. The corrective justice view shows a great connection between the wrong that was made and the remedy given. The remedy is seen to be in despondence with the injustice done and the main aim is undoing the injustice (Murphy, 2005).
I think the corrective justice view is more persuasive. This is because the aim of tort liability aims at ending injustices which are carried out. Even though at some point the economic view is applied the aim initially is the corrective justice to put an end to what is not right. The economic approach treats the goal of tort law to be in terms of wealth which I think is not right (Murphy, 2005).
Damages such as loss of life, body integrity, emotional distress, loss of consortium, pain and suffering and the like should be awarded. They should be measured in tortfeasor. An indifference test is carried out through the offer of a hypothetical test. This test is carried out by people with relevant injuries then those with injuries. The costs of accidents and those of preventing accidents are usually in the same units (Murphy, 2005).
Reference
Fletcher, G. (1992). Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory. Harvard Law Review, 537-564.
Murphy, M. (2005). Philosophy of Law. New York: Wiley.
