Template talk:Tort law
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Template-class)|
Just caught a rather funny error by Wikidea
I just realized that this template has links to "Negligent emotional distress" and "Intentional emotional distress." After I stopped laughing, I tracked down who inserted the names of torts that don't actually exist. They appear to have been inserted at this well-intended edit  in May 2007 by Wikidea.
The terms "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "negligent infliction of emotional distress" have long been established, at least in American law. For example, see, e.g., Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493 (finding that use of racial epithets during firing was sufficient to support an IIED cause of action) and Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644.
I think the better solution would be to either restore the full names of these torts or insert the common acronyms for them, IIED and NIED. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 06:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a typing error! In the UK we just call it "psychiatric harm" and then there's Wilkinson v Downton which hasn't been used in almost any reported case since the 19th century. So these American terms are beyond me! Wikidea 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Defences in the intentional torts section
The defences would apply to torts not listed in that section, wouldn't it make sense to make a separate section? Actually the necessity article only implies the defence is for property torts. I guess that might be an issue with that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Another kind of strange thing is there's "Volenti non fit injuria" under the defences section, then Consent under the intentional torts section. Shouldn't these be in the same section? Or even the same article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)