Seduction (tort)

Last updated

The tort of seduction was a civil wrong or tort in common law legal systems, and still exists in some jurisdictions.

Contents

Originally, it allowed an unmarried woman's father - or other person employing her services - to sue for the loss of these services, when she became pregnant and could no longer perform them. [1] Over time, the tort was altered, so that instead, it would be used by an unmarried woman to sue on the grounds of seduction to obtain damages from her seducer, if her consent to sex was based upon his misrepresentation. [2]

Breach of promise was a similar, but not identical, tort that was used frequently in similar situations in the past, but has now been abolished in most jurisdictions. [3]

Initially, the tort of seduction was a remedy for a father's property interest in his daughter's chastity. [4] However, the damages to which the father would be entitled were based on the father's loss of the working services of a daughter, much as a master could sue if a third-party caused injury to his servant that rendered the servant unable to work, because she was "seduced and debauched" and became pregnant as a result of nonmarital sexual activity. The tort of seduction was one of the most common civil actions toward the end of the 19th century, and fathers were often successful before juries. [1]

In the 20th century, the action was criticised as maintaining "property interests in humans", and the tort was recast to recognize personal injury to the woman, rather than solely deprivation of a father's property right. Most jurisdictions granted the victim (the wronged woman) the right to sue in her own name. (Fathers could still sue as well, on the ground that they had a moral interest in their daughters' chastity). [1] The suing woman was "usually but not always a virgin". [2]

England

Historically, the seduced female could not bring a suit herself. Rather, it would usually be brought by her father, acting under the legal fiction that the parent-child relationship falls under the master-servant relationship. However, if the daughter was a contracted servant, a suit could not be brought by her father against her master. [4] English courts did not require the father to bring the suit: any person who had suffered a loss of the woman's services could bring a claim, and successful claimants included widowed mothers and aunts. [5] Generally, seductions had to result in pregnancy in order to be actionable, although exceptions did exist. [6] Although damages were nominally awarded for the financial loss to the claimant, by the 19th century they tended to reflect more the social embarrassment and stigma associated with pregnancy out of wedlock that was suffered by the claimant. [7]

The tort was abolished in England & Wales in 1971, under section 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. [8]

Canada

Property and civil rights is a provincial power in Canada, so all torts can vary by province. Many Canadian judges highly disliked the tort, and sought to interpret it as narrowly as possible, citing concerns that the tort could be used for extortion, vindictiveness and the encouragement of immorality. [9] [10] Most provinces abolished it due to incompatibility with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although successful actions by the latter half of the 20th century were increasingly rare anyway.

Alberta

As described below, the Northwest Territories enacted seduction laws in 1903, when Alberta was still part of the Territories. When it became a separate province in 1905, it retained this law. The 1934 John Brownlee sex scandal revolved around a seduction suit. The law was repealed in 1985 by the Charter Omnibus Act, S.A. 1985, c. 15, since the law was considered contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which precludes discrimination. [11]

British Columbia

The action was abolished by the Family Law Reform Amendments Act 1985, c72. [12]

Manitoba

In 1892, Manitoba adopted anti-seduction laws, copying and citing in part the Ontario legislation. [13] It abolished these laws in 1982, under the Equality of Status Act, alongside all other heartbalm actions. [14]

New Brunswick

New Brunswick repealed seduction laws in 1985, since they were incompatible with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which precludes discrimination. [15]

North West Territories

In 1903, the Northwest Territories adopted anti-seduction laws. At this time, Alberta and Saskatchewan were both part of the North West Territories, and retained this law even after becoming separate provinces in 1905. [13] Similar to Prince Edward Island's 1852 statute, this notably allowed for a seduced woman to sue for herself with this tort, for personal hurt and injury (as opposed to much of the previous law, targeted at compensating a father). [16] The law was abolished in 1985, due to incompatibility with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which precludes discrimination. [15]

Ontario

An Act to make the remedy for cases of seduction more effectual, and to tender the fathers of illegitimate children liable for their support, was passed in Upper Canada on March 4, 1837. Amending traditional common law, it allowed fathers to sue their daughters' masters for the tort of seduction. It also held biological fathers liable for children conceived out of wedlock.

The Seduction Act was repealed in 1978 by the Family Law Reform Act. [17] [4]

Saskatchewan

As described above, the Northwest Territories enacted seduction laws in 1903, when Saskatchewan was still part of the Territories. When it became a separate province in 1905, it retained this law. [13] The province repealed its seduction law in 1990: becoming the last province to do so. [10] [18]

Prince Edward Island

An 1852 statute in Prince Edward Island notably allowed for a seduced woman to sue for herself with this tort, for personal hurt and injury (as opposed to much of the previous law, targeted at compensating a father), although damages were capped at 100 pounds. [4] [16] However, two years later, in McInnis v McCallum, the court held that a woman could only sue for damages herself if she could show that at the time of the seduction, she also had had a parent, master or guardian entitled to sue under the common law action, for loss of her services. [16]

United States

In the United States, the tort of seduction has been abolished in most states. [2] Fears of fraudulent suits, combined with a turn away from the view of property interests in persons, led to the enactment of "heart balm" statutes, abolishing causes of action for seduction, breach of promise, alienation of affection, criminal conversation, etc. in most states in the 20th century.

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 "FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw" . Retrieved 29 July 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 Posner, Richard (1994). Sex and Reason. p.  81. ISBN   0-674-80279-9. The tort of seduction allows an unmarried woman (formerly her father or other guardian), usually but not always a virgin, to obtain damages from her seducer, provided that he made misrepresentations to obtain her consent to sex.
  3. ↑ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 40.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Bailey, Martha (1991). "Girls and Masters: The Tort of Seduction and the Support of Bastards". Canadian Journal of Family Law. 10: 137–162. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  5. ↑ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 36.
  6. ↑ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 37.
  7. ↑ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 39.
  8. ↑ "Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970" . Retrieved 29 July 2023.
  9. ↑ Back, Constance (1986). "The Tort of Seduction: Fathers and Daughters in Nineteenth Century Canada". The Dalhousie Law Journal. 10 (45): 63.
  10. 1 2 "Seduction and the Law - Canada's History" . Retrieved 29 July 2023.
  11. ↑ Brode, Patrick (2002). Courted and Abandoned: Seduction in Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 240. ISBN   9780802037503.
  12. ↑ Brode, Patrick (2002). Courted and Abandoned: Seduction in Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 190. ISBN   9780802037503.
  13. 1 2 3 Back, Constance (1986). "The Tort of Seduction: Fathers and Daughters in Nineteenth Century Canada". The Dalhousie Law Journal. 10 (45): 54.
  14. ↑ The Equality of Status Act, CCSM c E130 canlii.org
  15. 1 2 Kutner, Peter (1987). "Law Reform in Tort: Abolition of Liability for "Intentional" interference with family relationships". Western Australian Law Review. 17 (1): 67.
  16. 1 2 3 Back, Constance (1986). "The Tort of Seduction: Fathers and Daughters in Nineteenth Century Canada". The Dalhousie Law Journal. 10 (45): 55.
  17. ↑ Friedman, Lawrence; Grossman, joanna (2011). Inside the Castle: Law and the Family in 20th Century America. Princeton [NJ]: Princeton University Press. p. 357. ISBN   9780691149820.
  18. ↑ Brode, Patrick (2002). Courted and Abandoned: Seduction in Canadian Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN   9781442657625.

See also

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages.

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.

Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions that aim to preclude frivolous litigation:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of India</span>

The legal system of India consists of civil law, common law, customary law, religious law and corporate law within the legal framework inherited from the colonial era and various legislation first introduced by the British are still in effect in modified forms today. Since the drafting of the Indian Constitution, Indian laws also adhere to the United Nations guidelines on human rights law and the environmental law. personal law is fairly complex, with each religion adhering to its own specific laws. In most states, registering of marriages and divorces is not compulsory. Separate laws govern Hindus including Sikhs, Jains and Buddhist, Muslims, Christians, and followers of other religions. The exception to this rule is in the state of Goa, where a uniform civil code is in place, in which all religions have a common law regarding marriages, divorces, and adoption. Plus, recently, on February 7, 2024, the Indian state of Uttarakhand has also incorporated a uniform civil code. In the first major reformist judgment for the 2010s, the Supreme Court of India banned the Islamic practice of "Triple Talaq". The landmark Supreme Court of India judgment was welcomed by women's rights activists across India.

Breach of promise is a common-law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry, and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.

Loss of consortium is a term used in the law of torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor. In this context, the word consortium means "(the right of) association and fellowship between two married people". Damages may be claimed under three theories: incurred medical costs or those yet to be incurred by the plaintiff, the loss of an injured spouse's services, and loss of society.

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be:

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

Paternity fraud is one form of misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy. Specifically, paternity fraud is the intentional misidentification of a child's biological father by its mother. Paternity fraud is distinct from other, unintentional misattribution, which may arise from simple error, an accident such as a mix-up during fertility treatment, or a sexual assault.

<i>Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Dobson v Dobson, [1999] 2 SCR 753 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on a pregnant woman's legal duties in tort law. It was the first time the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider this issue. The majority of the Court found that tort claims cannot be brought against women for negligence toward the fetus during pregnancy.

The obsolete German legal concept Kranzgeld is heart balm rewarded as compensation to a woman of "immaculate reputation" if a man broke off his engagement after having had sexual intercourse with her. Immaculate reputation in this context meant mainly virginity, but could also be lost through other factors such as being convicted of a crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crown Proceedings Act 1947</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party. The Act also reasserted the common law doctrine of Crown privilege but by making it, for the first time, justiciable paved the way for the development of the modern law of public interest immunity.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Tort Claims Act</span> United States law

The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") is a 1946 federal statute that permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. Historically, citizens have not been able to sue the government — a doctrine referred to as sovereign immunity. The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, permitting citizens to pursue some tort claims against the federal government. It was passed and enacted as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal conversation</span> Tort arising from adultery

At common law, criminal conversation, often abbreviated as crim. con., is a tort arising from adultery. "Conversation" is an old euphemism for sexual intercourse that is obsolete except as part of this term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Edward Brownlee sex scandal</span> 1934 scandal in Alberta, Canada

The John Brownlee sex scandal occurred in 1934 in Alberta, Canada, and forced the resignation of the provincial Premier, John Edward Brownlee. Brownlee was accused of seducing Vivian MacMillan, a family friend and a secretary for Brownlee's attorney-general in 1930, when she was 18 years old, and continuing the affair for three years. MacMillan claimed that the married premier had told her that she must have sex with him for his own sake and that of his invalid wife. She had, she testified, relented after physical and emotional pressure. Brownlee called her story a fabrication, and suggested that it was the result of a conspiracy by MacMillan, her would-be fiancé, and several of Brownlee's political opponents in the Alberta Liberal Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Heartbalm tort</span> Civil action in common law for end of relationship

In the common law tradition, a heartbalm tort or heartbalm action is a civil action that a person may bring to seek monetary compensation for the end or disruption of a romantic or marital relationship. A heartbalm statute is a statute forbidding such actions.

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.