| Part of thecommon law series |
| Tort law |
|---|
| (Outline) |
| Trespass to the person |
| Property torts |
| Dignitary torts |
| Negligent torts |
| Principles of negligence |
| Strict andabsolute liability |
| Nuisance |
| Economic torts |
| Defences |
| Liability |
| Legal remedy |
| Other topics in tort law |
| By jurisdiction |
| Othercommon law areas |
Quasi-tort is a legal term that is sometimes used to describe unusualtort actions, on the basis of alegal doctrine that some legal duty exists which cannot be classified strictly as negligence in a personal duty resulting in atort nor as acontractual duty resulting in abreach of contract, but rather some other kind of duty recognizable by thelaw. It has been used, for example, to describe a tort forstrict liability arising out ofproduct liability, although this is typically simply called a 'tort'.[1]
Although it is not to be found in most legal dictionaries, it has been used by some scholars such as Sri Lankan Lakshman Marasinghe. Lakshman proposes that the doctrine provides legal relief that falls outside tort or contract, but with some of the characteristics of tort or contract, as can be found in restitution (including unjust enrichment),[2]equity (including unconscionable conduct[3]), beneficiaries under a trust of the benefit of a promise, people protected by the valid assignment of promise,fiduciary duty, and contracts of insurance.[4]
InTort Theory,Lakshman Marasinghe posits thatquasi-delict, a doctrine incivil law jurisdictions, exists as well in common law.[5] Marasinghe thus argues againstViscount Haldane'sdictum inSinclair v Brougham, that the only common law civilcauses of action are, by definition, contract and tort.[5]
Brooklyn Law School'slaw review had an article with a similar argument, "Contractor Duty to Third Parties Not in Privity: A Quasi-Tort Solution to the Vexing Problem of Victims of Nonfeasance."[6]
Malta recognizes quasi-tort as a third type of liability.[7][8][9]Belgium also has quasi-tort.[10]
Tort law has been modified by statute to expand protection, and limit liability. Many tort law statutes have their origins in common law, and are interpreted through common law. These includeworker's compensation,insurance law,consumer protection laws,labor law,[11]products liability law,energy law,compensation to relatives on death,anti-discrimination law,[12] and other miscellaneous and difficult-to-categorize areas of law. This may includestatutory law or administrativeregulation[12][13] that define, aid interpretation (construction), provide means to calculate quantum of damages, clarify personal responsibility, or replace torts with their origins in common law.
Lakshman suggests there may be scholars who have viewed certain recently created torts, such asnegligent infliction of emotional distress, as quasi-torts.
Raymond T. Nimmer used the term in:- "Restatement (Second) of Torts section 552 onnegligent misrepresentation ... deals with a quasi-tort,quasi-contract form ofliability."[14]
Lakshman Marasinghe posits that it is a category where the wrong isboth a contractand a tort, such as withlegal malpractice,[15] ormedical malpractice. For example,New York law applies the samestatute of limitations "formedical,dental orpodiatricmalpractice to be commenced within two years and six months," whether under contract or tort theories.[16]
Someequity actions can be viewed as quasi-torts, such asquiet title andqui tam actions.
