In pari delicto

Last updated

In pari delicto (potior/melior est conditio possidentis), Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition of the possessor)", [1] is a legal term used to refer to two persons or entities who are equally at fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort. The doctrine is subject to a number of exceptions, including that the plaintiff must be an active, voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct, the plaintiff's wrongdoing must be at least substantially equal to or greater than that of the defendant, [2] the "adverse interest" exception, and the "innocent insider" exception.

Contents

The doctrine

The phrase is most commonly used by courts when relief is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of equal wrongdoing by both parties, or greater culpability on the part of the plaintiff. [2] The phrase means, in essence, that if both parties are equally at fault or the plaintiff is at greater fault, the court will not involve itself in resolving one side's claim over the other, and whoever possesses whatever is in dispute may continue to do so in the absence of a superior claim. [2] It is an equitable defense. [3]

The doctrines of comparative fault (a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a lawsuit for a single injury) and contributory negligence (applicable when plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered) are not the same as in pari delicto, though all of these doctrines have related policy rationale underpinnings.

Exceptions to the doctrine

Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York held in 2010 in SEC v. Lee, 720 F. Supp. 2d 305, that:

"To successfully apply the doctrine, the plaintiff must be an active, voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct, and the plaintiff's wrongdoing must be at least substantially equal to that of the defendant.... Furthermore, under New York law, the doctrine of in pari delicto may be subject to the "adverse interest" exception, which applies when an agent is defrauding the principal exclusively for the agent's own benefit and to the detriment of the corporation.... Another exception to the in pari delicto defense is the "innocent insider" exception, which provides that if there is another agent within the corporation who had no knowledge of the fraud, and who had the will and the ability to stop the fraud had it come to his or her attention, the in pari delicto defense will fail..." [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine in the common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean hands</span> Doctrine used in law to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying, "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".

Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of their injury.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

Comparative negligence, called non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors all contributed to cause the plaintiff's damages. It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence that disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span>

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to his or her body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

Comparative responsibility is a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a lawsuit for a single injury. Comparative responsibility may apply to intentional torts as well as negligence and encompasses the doctrine of comparative negligence.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

George Benjamin Daniels is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<i>Ultramares Corp. v. Touche</i>

Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

<i>Cahoon v. Cummings</i>

Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, was a case decided by the Indiana Supreme Court that adopted the loss of a chance doctrine for tort liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

Whether providing services as an accountant or auditor, a certified public accountant (CPA) owes a duty of care to the client and third parties who foreseeably rely on the accountant's work. Accountants can be sued for negligence or malpractice in the performance of their duties, and for fraud.

References

  1. ↑ Broom, Herbert (1900). "A Selection of Legal Maxims: Classified and Illustrated". Sweet and Maxwell, Limited – via Google Books.
  2. 1 2 3 James M. Fischer (2010). Understanding Remedies, ISBN   9781422486559.
  3. ↑ Brian A. Blum, Amy C. Bushaw (2017). Contracts; Cases, Discussion and Problems, Wolters Kluwer, ISBN   9781454887140.
  4. ↑ "SEC v. Lee, 720 F. Supp. 2d 305 – (United States District Court, S.D. New York; 2010)". Courtlistener.com. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.