 there are two general concepts of torts. The first is the legal wrong that someone suffers because of someone else's actions. The second is the benefit that comes to the tort-feasor from the wrong that he does to another. From long before the American Revolution, these had been separate in the English common law, even being handled by different courts. The first had been addressed by courts of law, the second by courts of equity. To some extent, these are still separate today because of having different evidentiary requirements and different legal remedies that the courts can apply. A man's neighbor children who are minors borrow his car without permission and take it around town, giving their friends rides wherever they can. If they have an accident and the car is damaged, it is a tort in law. The man suffers damages to his car and can sue them in tort to recover those damages. Then again, their adventure can be advantageous with several of their riders paying a few dollars each. When the neighbor children return the car, they leave half the money on the seat for the odor. The man suffers no damage but comes out ahead through their borrowing action. It is still a tort of wrong against the man to take his car and he can sue in equity seeking remedies such as unjust enrichment. The courts then have two separate purposes to serve and both are based on justice. The one is protection of the victims from losses due to the acts of wrong against them. The other is discouragement or prevention of the wrongs as a public service. The action in law requires victims to prove that a wrong was done to them and that they suffered loss. The remedy is restoration of the victim by satisfying so far as possible the losses suffered. The American legal system has bridged between law and equity with both the concept of pain and suffering as elements of loss and with punitive damages. The value of pain and suffering is subjective and cannot be proven to any dollar amount. It is a way to hold the tort freezer accountable for real but unquantifiable damages. Punitive damages provides an answer to corporate protections, situations where a tort freezer acts as an officer of a corporate effort such that the corporation commits the tort instead of the officer as a person. Collecting recovery of proven losses from the corporation often does not serve justice as one who caused the damages protected from the consequences of the tort. The concept of punitive damages are also available to address acts in tort that are so anti-social in nature that simply paying the losses is not a detriment to the ones who do wrong. Actions in equity often differ and give different remedies and the plea is not for simple restitution. The action in equity can even be entered as an injunction to discourage the tort that has not yet caused damage. The American courts strongly favor actions in law where damages to be addressed are well defined and actions of the court prescribe. Actions in equity are common law actions seeking justice and domestic tranquility instead of simple application of legal codes and legislative mandates. Still, the continued support of equity actions is universal, supported by both leaders and citizens and the American legal system is arranged to handle both of these actions. Actions in equity always involve judicial decisions. It is the search for justice in legal application where the restitution action of the court does not serve the people. A state legislature decides to buy textbooks for all state students in public schools not having the money to do so they determine to tax the peanut industry which has been doing very well economically. The law to do so passes over the strenuous objection of the peanut farmers and the industries that make and sell peanut products. It will destroy the livelihood of a quarter of a percent of the people who have been profiting well on this industry and will either force many of them out of their businesses or impoverish them. The legislation is legal in terms of the legislative process. It is just unfair. It is wrong against the few for the benefit of the many. The action is in equity seeking an injunction to prevent the law from being given effect. It is here that the question of fairness and justice can be adjudicated within the court and an order may be issued to stop the implementation of that tax until there is a court determination of its meeting the legal requirements for justice and equal protection of law. There has been no tort committed by the passage of the law but there is a promise that there will be a tort based damage unless the action is halted. The action is in equity. For tort lawyers, engagement and justice conflicts is a blood sport with them as higher champions to carry the strength of their clients causes into the arena of the court. One side will win, the other will lose. Tort law does not promote win-win situations. Yet they are peaceful settlements in terms of those who have disputes to settle but they substitute conflict between legal champions. The combat is just as real even if no blood is spilled upon the floor. It is just a combat that is maintained by our legal system even if the outcome is delivery of a publicly appreciated level of justice that cost has been very high. The courtroom is a theater where the conflict is played out and satisfied. Those who would have their issues settled in court face the very real cost of supporting that combat. If they do not know the rules that will be applied and few do other than the judges and lawyers who practice tort law they need to hire a legal champion. Simply having a righteous and legitimate cause is rarely enough to assure that justice will be served. It is such an expensive process that the very cost of pursuing court involvement is recognized as legal damages. Many times the very threat of legal costs is so great as to bring the parties to private agreement to settle their differences. That has become a recognized aspect of the value of the court system that it is so expensive that it is often better to accept than otherwise unacceptable settlement than to enter into the courtroom theater. It is such an expensive process that it probably would not work at all except for the recognition of legal costs as part of the damages suffered by the victim of a tort. The shifting of costs to the loser of the court contest skews justice in favor of avoiding the increased damages of seeking justice through the courts. The lesser costs of legal settlements drives less certain applications of law and equity to settle out of court at less expense but also with less assurance that justice and fairness will be served. And then we have to address insurance, the non-party party to the tort, who will be a party in the legal actions. Even simple matters can become immediately and horribly complex if some insurance carrier has paid a claim to one of the parties and takes their place in the suit or becomes the wronged party. They can pay the legal fees of the side they represent, minimizing damages in a way that skews the findings of justice. The involvement of the insurers interferes with economic responsibilities. We have a corporate insurer who interferes with the traditional application of justice. Perhaps the worst example of interference is through medical malpractice where the insurer takes economic responsibility for non-negligent torts of the medical provider. What then is the service of justice when the tort-feasor has no detriment to the commission of future torts? The cost will be borne by the insurer who will then spread that cost among all insured providers. There is little in terms of justice to be served in equity when the insurance provider is the one who is punished for the wrongs of the tort-feasor. This is the nature of legal malpractice insurance as well. The lawyer who enters into this legal arena of a courtroom faces another who is every bit as determined to win. If there is a loss and justice is not served, it is likely that the attorney will be blamed for the loss and may be sued for damages incurred as a result of the unsuccessful legal action. The court action declares winners and losers of tort actions. There are almost always those who are unsatisfied with the outcome and have the urge to seek legal restitution for the damaging expenses that are incurred in an unsuccessful legal support. The courtroom supports combat and combat is never neat or settled. There are always questions of what would happen if it was a little different. There is then also a chance for the losing side, half of those who go into court, to satisfy wrongs having some basis for complaint. This is the system we have. It works to some good effect but is horribly expensive to use. It is accordingly most used but where those damages are severe or the need for the use of authority of the court is great. Lesser matters are subject to alternative agreement just to avoid the damaging costs associated with our legal systems handling of torts. It is indicative that avoiding the courts is a value in itself. The purpose is not serving justice and domestic tranquility through operation of the courts, so much as forcing people to resolution outside of the courts. Still, courts are there to handle the really critical issues. Courts are there to handle equity when there is no other good alternative. It is there to address justice and public tranquility when it is government that would act against its own public purposes to the harm of its citizens. Even being unwilling to recognize the sovereignty of the citizen, our courts do act to protect citizens from the more obvious challenges of abusive, unfair, or otherwise forbidden government actions. The drawback is that handling disputes and protecting citizens from torts are not accepted as the mission of the courts. They serve only the people who come to the courts seeking services. The courts only take action when there is a citizen who makes a formal demand for service. Otherwise, the actions of the sovereign government they serve go forward without any real legal restraint, and wrongs against the citizens go unresolved. But then the process of legal justice is itself a barrier, a cost in time required to make the demand in the form of and substance demanded by the courts as a basis for its involvement. There is a high cost of legal process that discourages the use of the courts. Whether this is or is not a service is not a given. It depends upon your personal sense of values. This is one of those issue-based disagreements. Whether the justice is served is worth what the citizen user pays, plus any tax dollars committed to the court operations. It is a serious question. This is one of those services that, if you really need it, it is there. If your need is less, then it may not serve you at all, or even be a detriment to your just cause.