•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

3

Document Type

Article

Abstract

At the conclusion of a popular film, a bride's father observes that even between apples and oranges, there is common ground; after all, as different as apples and oranges may be, they are both fruit. Similarly, one might begin the enterprise of comparing torts and Catholicism by expecting to find at least some common ground because despite their differences, they are both law. In functioning as such, both claim to guide people to modes of better behavior, and both are communicated in languages that speak of justice and mercy, good and bad, right and wrong, and even final judgments. Under such circumstances, one could assume there is sufficient commonality for fruitful comparison. Such an assumption, however, would be wrong. The worlds of tort law and Catholicism function in such conceptually different frameworks, and perceive their roles as laws so differently, that attempts to compare them are likely to yield only frustration. The framework in which tort law functions is one of duty, breach, injury, and cause. The law of Christ, meanwhile, mentions none of these requirements. Instead, Christ's instruction functions within a framework of love. In fact, Christ insisted that "[t]he whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments[:] "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind[,]" and "[y]ou shall love your neighbor as yourself." Paul reaffirmed this framework for the early Church when he instructed, "[o]we nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law." One cannot bridge the gap between the law of duty, breach, injury, and cause and the law of love by defining these terms. From the outset, such an endeavor must fail because duty acknowledges an obligation to do something, while love acknowledges no such obligation. Instead, love connotes an action freely performed as a gift, the greatest act of love being "to give your life for your friends." The Catholic Church has subsequently generated the body of Canon Law, which carries with it required behaviors. Yet, it has done so apologetically, recognizing that the creation of such duties is to be minimized so that the law of love can be given cognizance in all contexts "where there is no need of a strict observance of the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline." Any discussion, then, of tort law and Christ's law must begin with the recognition that the two are intended to relate with people in completely different ways. Thus, although they are both labeled as laws, their comparison is more akin to comparing apples and elephants than apples and oranges. Closer study of tort law and Christ's instruction yields only higher degrees of disparity. This piece, for example, compares negligence, the largest field of tort liability, with Catholic thought and tradition. In doing so, the piece must juxtapose debates over words with appeals for action, compare a battle between objectivity and subjectivity with the fulfillment of truth, and consider the difference of worldview experienced by the eye of ordinary vigilance and the eye of Christ. Ultimately, it must compare a system that calls for people to be perfectly reasonable with a calling for people to love to a degree that, as Mother Teresa said, can be perfectly unreasonable. To accomplish this task, the piece first will present the questions that have been seized upon and preserved by American tort law from the conflicting opinions of the classic negligence case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company. The piece will then bring teachings from the Catholic tradition to bear on those questions. In doing so, the piece will demonstrate that not only do Catholicism and tort law differ on the way in which these questions should be answered, but, more importantly, they differ on whether these are questions that should guide human behavior at all. Though awkward, the attempt to see negligence in the light of Christ's law is worth undertaking if for no other reason than to come to grips with what negligence law is and what it cannot be. Surely, it can be our best attempt to maintain some notion of equity in an imperfect and fallen world. If, however, we expect to find that negligence law is the voice of Divine Justice in America, we will be sorely disappointed. This disappointment should lessen neither one's commitment to make the tort system better, nor one's willingness to use it as a forum for ministry and healing. However, it should caution one to be careful neither to take too seriously the religious imagery of our legal system nor to forget that America is for the Christian but the land of his sojourn.

Download

Included in

Torts Commons

Share

COinS