2. “A violation of public law which renders a person who commits him unfit to be a citizen is simply called a crime, but also a public crime; Thus, the first (private crime) is brought before a civil court, the second before a criminal court. Id., p. 105 (Ak. 6:331). Offences fall into three broad categories: intentional misdemeanor (e.g., intentionally beating a person); tort of negligence (e.g. causing an accident through non-compliance with traffic rules); and strict liability (e.g. liability for the manufacture and sale of defective products – see product liability). Intentional tort is an injustice that the defendant knew, or ought to have known, would result from his acts or omissions.

There is a tort of negligence where the defendant`s actions were unreasonably uncertain. Unlike intentional and negligent tort, strict liability does not depend on the diligence exercised by the defendant. On the contrary, in cases of strict liability, courts focus on whether a particular result or damage has manifested. A civil fault or wrong is a civil cause of action. Types include tort, breach of contract, and breach of trust. [1] There are two types of injustice, namely legal injustice and moral injustice. In civil proceedings, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant caused the injury and damage. In order to cope with this burden, the applicant will call witnesses to testify and present physical evidence.

In civil proceedings, the plaintiff must convince or the jury that it is more likely that the defendant caused the damage. This level of certainty or conviction is called the preponderance of evidence. Another feature of a civil lawsuit is that the defendant can sue the plaintiff and claim that the plaintiff is actually liable for the damage. Criminal injustice is different from civil or moral injustice. Criminal injustice is behaviour that harms society as a whole and not a particular person or entity. When people violate the criminal law, there are usually penalties that include jail time and fines. A crime is an act or omission that violates the rules of society. The government on behalf of the company is the applicant. Criminal injustice can be committed in a variety of ways by individuals, groups or companies against individuals, corporations, governments or without a specific victim. The maxim refers to actual damage without violation of a legal claim. Damnum sine injuria means actual damage suffered without legal damage. In this case, the mere fact of damage does not mean that there has been a violation, i.e.

violation of legal rights. There are many actions that are not illegal in the eyes of the law. Damages can take the form of money, service, physical injury, loss of health or reputation, and loss of comfort. According to this maxim, these are simple damages without violation of legal rights. A simple damage, however important it may be, without prejudice to a legal action, does not give rise to an action. Offences must be distinguished from crimes that constitute injustices against the State or society as a whole. The main purpose of criminal accountability is to ensure respect for public justice. In contrast, tort law deals with private injustice and has the central objective of compensating the victim rather than punishing the offender.2 Certain acts may form a basis for both tort and criminal liability. For example, serious negligence endangering the lives of others can be both a misdemeanor and a crime.3 In Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Raym Ld. 938, Ashby (the plaintiff) voted in the general election.

The election official in the voting booth, named White (the respondent), refused to record the applicant`s vote. The applicant was a lawful citizen of the electoral district and was entitled to vote. The vote cast by the applicant was in favour of the winner of the election. The applicant filed an application on the basis that his vote as an elector was not recorded. Therefore, he should receive compensation from the defendant. The respondent`s objection was that the plaintiff`s unregistered vote was in favour of the winner of the election and that, therefore, no damage (damage) had been caused. The court ruled that the vote cast by the plaintiff was in favour of the winner of the election. Thus, there is no actual harm to the plaintiff, but his legal right to choose was violated by the defendant. Denying an elector to register his or her vote is an injustice in civil law and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to a judicial remedy. The doctrine of injuria sine damnum prevailed and the plaintiff was offered compensation. According to Pollock: “Evil in morality is the opposite of good.

Right action is what moral rides prescribe or recommend, wrong action is what is forbidden. For legal purposes, anything prohibited by law is false; An injustice is committed when a legal obligation is violated. In the most important case, injustice can be described as anything that violates or omits a legal obligation, insofar as it engages its responsibility.” Therefore, the existence of a duty, since it is a law, also includes the possibility of injustice; Logically, nothing more than possibility, even if we know only too well that all the rules are indeed sometimes broken. Duty, good and evil are not separate or divisible heads of legislation or its subject, but different legal aspects of the same rules and events. There can be duties and rights without harm; This happens whenever legal obligations are fulfilled in a fair and truthful manner. Of course, there can be no injustice unless an obligation already exists, but injustice also creates new duties and responsibilities. Strictly speaking, therefore, there can be no clear law on injustice. By the law of injustice, we can only understand the law of duties or a category of duties considered to be the object of a violation, and the special rules for the granting of reparations or penalties that come into force when a violation has occurred. There is no law of rights or duties and another law of injustice. Nevertheless, certain types of duties are more visible in violation than in compliance.

The natural end of a positive duty is performance. A thing must be done, and if it is done correctly, the duty, as we say, is accomplished, the man who was legally bound is legitimately troubled. We think about performance, not injuries. Appointments as public servants are made or should be made with the expectation that the appointees will perform their official duties adequately. In Gloucester Grammar School (1411) YB II, a teacher (the defendant) founded a new school opposite Gloucester Grammar School. A large number of students from Gloucester Grammar School flocked to the new school. This resulted in a financial loss for the owner of Gloucester Grammar School. The owner of Gloucester Grammar School (the plaintiff) made a written application, alleging that he had suffered a financial loss as a result of the defendant`s act and sought compensation from the defendant. The court ruled that although there is financial loss (damage) to the plaintiff, the defendant has the right to start a legal business and can compete fairly. The defendant had therefore not violated any legal rights of the plaintiff and therefore nothing could be done against the defendant.

Since it is fair competition, the applicant has the same chances to improve his level and increase his strength. Legal injustice can be divided into criminal injustice and civil injustice. Injustice that goes against the good of the public and the state is called criminal injustice, while injustice that affects the interests of a particular individual is called civil injustice. Criminal injustices include acts such as murder, robbery, assault, theft, etc., while less serious injustices such as trespassing, harassment, pollution, copyright infringement, etc. are recognized as civil injustice. However, some injustices meet the criterion of civil and criminal injustice. In these situations, the distinction between the two injustices may be slightly blurred. They can be described as civil and criminal injustice.

Thus, there can be both a criminal action and a legal action for a single wrong. Some examples include personal injury, defamation, neglect, harassment, reckless driving, etc. The main purpose of a civil action is to financially compensate the injured party. The plaintiff brought the action on his own behalf, for example, Sam Smith v. Joe Jones.