 There are two general concepts of tort. The first is a 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 he does to another. From long before the American Revolution, these had been separate in English common law, even being handled by different courts. This first, addressed by courts of law, this 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 tort law. The man suffers damages to his car and can sue and 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 owner. The man suffers no damage, but comes out ahead through the borrowing action. It is still a tort, a wrong against the man to take his car. 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 the wrong against them. The other is discouragement or prevention of wrongs as public service. The action in law requires a victim to prove the wrong was done them, and they suffered loss. The remedy is restoration of the victim by satisfying so far as is possible the losses suffered. The American legal system has bridged between law and equity, with both the concept of pain and suffering and the 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 provide an answer to the corporate protection situation 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, and the one who caused the damages protected from the consequences of the tort. The concept of punitive damages are also available to direct acts of tort that are so anti-social in nature that simply paying for the losses is not a detriment to the ones who do the wrong. Actions in equity offer 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 damages. The American courts strongly favor actions in law where the damages to be addressed are well-defined and the action of the court prescribed. Actions in equity are common law actions seeking justice and domestic tranquility instead of simple application of legal codes and legal mandates. Still, the continued support of equity actions is universal and supported by both leaders and citizens, and the American legal system is arranged to handle 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 peanut farmers and with industries that make use of peanuts also very much against it. It will destroy the livelihood of a quarter of a percent of the people who are profiting from this industry and will either force many of them out of business or impoverish them. The legislation is legal in terms of legislative process. It is just unfair. It is wrong against the few for the benefit of the many. The action in equity seeking an injunction to prevent the law from being put into 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 implementation of that tax until there is a court determination of its meeting the legal requirements for justice and equal protection of the law. There has been no tort committed by the passage of the law and there is promise that there will be a tort based action unless the action is halted. The action is inequity. For tort lawyers, engagement in justice conflicts is a blood sport with them as hired champions to carry the strength of their clients causes into the arena of the court. One side will win, the other will lose. There will not be a win-win situation. 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 on the floor. It is just combat that is maintained by our legal system even if the outcome and delivery of publicly appreciated level of justice. The cost is still very high. The courtroom is the theater where the conflict is played out and satisfied. Those who would have the issues settled in court faced the very real cost of supporting that combat. If they do not know the rules that will be applied and the few who do the judges and lawyers who practice tort law they need to hire legal champions. Simply having a righteous and legitimate cause is rarely enough to assure that justice is 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 cost is so great as to bring the parties to a private agreement to settle their differences. That has become a recognized aspect and a value of the court system that it is so expensive to use that it is better to accept an 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 that legal costs are part of the damages suffered by the victim of the 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 application 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 to the tort who will be a party to the legal action. Even simple matters can become immediately unhorribly complex if insurance carrier has paid a claim to one of the parties and takes their place in the suit or becomes a wronged party. They can pay the legal fees of the side they represent, minimizing damages in a way that skews the finding of justice. The involvement of the insurers interferes with economic responsibilities. We have a corporate insurer who interferes with traditional application of justice. Perhaps the worst example of interferences 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 the 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 a legal arena of a courtroom faces another who is every bit as determined to win. If there is 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 restitution for the damaging expenses that have been incurred. The courtroom supports combat and combat is never neat and settled. There are always questions of what would have happened if it had been a little different. There is then also a chance of a 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. 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 a mission of the courts. They serve only the people who come to the court seeking services. The courts only take action when there is a citizen who makes a formal demand for service. Otherwise the actions of a sovereign government they serve go forward without legal restraint and wrongs against the citizens are unresolved. But then the process of legal justice are themselves a barrier, a cost in time required to make the demand and the form and substance demanded by the court as a basis for their 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 on your personal sense of values. This is one of those issue-based disagreements. Whether justice is served is worth the citizen user pays plus any tax dollars committed to the court operation. And that 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 you may not serve you at all or be a detriment to your cause. Thank you.