Legal basis
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]
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 recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised 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:
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.
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, also known as misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy, occurs when a man is incorrectly identified as the biological father of a child. The underlying assumption of "paternity fraud" is that the mother deliberately misidentified the biological father, while "misattributed paternity" may be accidental.
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.
Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
