Possible bases of the action for damages in tort:

Appeasement pacify wronged party, knowing that tortfeasor made to pay. The wronged party would then not be made to break peace. But this is disputable, eg. law of torts does not necessarily give wronged party compensation for causing disagreeable emotions where no other loss is inflicted. Justice ethical retribution: one who by his fault has caused damage to another ought to suffer paying compensation. But this is disputable as many tort actions are not punitive in purpose. ethical compensation: the wronged party ought to receive compensation. But this is arguable because plaintiff does not actually pay sometimes, as insurance does it for him. Deterrence Historically it was to deter wrongdoings alongside criminal law. But in todays society, the existence of insurance does little to help to deter as insurer might be the one who pay the compensation, not the defendant himself. It also fails to deter if the wrong is inadvertent. Compensation Plaintiff gets compensated by the defendant in accordance to the nature of harm he has suffered. Insurance ensures that the wronged will be able to recover recompense from the insured wrongdoer. But it is not adequate. A better system, a nationwide insurance, is not feasible because it is expensive although it will ensure wronged parties that they will be compensated sufficiently. Loss distribution and insurance When a plaintiff has insurance, there is certainty that the wronged party can recover recompense. Insurance helps defendants as well because they do not have to bear the total costs of compensation. In this case, both plaintiff and defendant benefit. However, availability of insurance is not often a serious consideration for the court. Economic analysis Losses can be not only be spread out but also distributed in a way most apposite to maximize economic efficiency. It is said that the principal objective of tort law is not to eliminate all loss, but to deter conduct resulting in damage where the cost of prevention is less than the cost of the loss or damage occurring. Employers should be placed the liability for injuries in workplace because they are better placed than the employee to spread the losses incurred. They can insure against risk of accidents, and then

passes on the cost of that insurance to the consumers of its products. They have the economic incentive to reduce accidents. But this should not be material for judges to decide case, as justice should be put above economic factors. Judges, in fact, do not take this factor into serious considerations.