***
Salmond’s pigeonhole theory was based on his view that the law of torts should consist of specific wrongs, rather than broad general principles. He argues that every case has its own pigeon-holes where each pigeon-hole is used to place a particular wrong or injury, which helps us to identify if there has been any wrongdoing. If there is no universal principle and the plaintiff can put their wrong in pigeon hole which holds all other named torts, the plaintiff will be successful. Salmond believed that this would help people understand what tort means because it would be easier for them to see why they are being sued even though the facts surrounding their case may vary considerably. Furthermore, Salmond suggests that under this system claimants could receive a remedy without having to resort to the law of contract, and defendants would be protected from being sued for all their possible wrongdoings.
In addition, if there is no pigeon-hole for a particular wrong, then the judge will have to use his own discretion in order to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing. In Salmond’s view, this will result in unequal protection under the law as some plaintiffs may not be able to fit their case into pigeon holes meaning that they cannot seek legal recourse or compensation. Furthermore, it would also mean that specific decisions can create different results between two parties bringing about inequality and unfairness and according to Salmond fairness means equal treatment by judges who should bring reason and logic where there is none.
Salmond’s pigeon-holes theory was based on the principle that wrongs can be categorised into concrete pigeon holes where each pigeon hole would be used to place a particular wrongdoing. He believed pigeon-holes were more reliable than general principles of law because they will help to identify whether or not there has been any wrongdoing and thus provide an easier way to understand why one is being sued. One criticism of this view is that pigeon holes, like rules and principles of tort law, are unable to take into account all conceivable wrongdoings and although pigeon-holes may be useful for structuring specific wrongs, they cannot take into account unforeseen injuries such as in “Hadley v Baxendale”. addition, pigeon-holes are applicable only in very limited circumstances, meaning that they are not always suitable. Furthermore pigeon-holes can be criticised as they do not cater to all specific wrongdoings and therefore there is a chance that pigeon holes will leave crucial wrongdoing unaddressed which would mean cases involving such wrongs will fall through the cracks and thus go unaccounted for. Another problem with pigeon-holes is that pigeon holes cannot capture or define every type of harm or damage under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing. This means unequal treatment as some plaintiffs might not be able to fit their case into pigeon holes whereas others might and therefore it would create unfairness and inequality.
Salmond made pigeonholes a requirement of tort law which means that if there is no pigeonhole for a particular wrong then the judge would have to use discretion to give a remedy which was not the objective of Salmond as he wanted pigeonholes to be used so as to avoid having specific decisions creating different results between two parties bringing about inequality and unfairness. For example, decision of “Hadley v Baxendale” tells us how it can lead to differing outcomes which was not what Salmond had in mind and this shows pigeon holes cannot create fairness because some plaintiffs might not be able to fit their case into pigeon holes thus causing disparity and injustice.
In conclusion, pigeon-holes theoretic approach has both advantages and disadvantages. pigeon-hole theory is better suited to define very specific wrongdoings in order to provide victims with an easily understandable reason for their case. pigeon-holes also help to find the right pigeon hole since each pigeon hole has a particular wrongdoing that can be identified, pigeon holes are more reliable than general principles because they will identify whether or not there has been any wrongdoing thus providing an easier way to understand why one is being sued. Salmond’s pigeon-holes theory could lead to unequal protection under the law as some plaintiffs may not be able to fit their case into pigeon holes whereas others might which would create different results between two parties bringing about inequality and unfairness because it means unequal treatment by judges who should bring reason and logic where there is none. pigeon-holes also cannot capture or define every type of harm under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing and this means unequal treatment as some plaintiffs might not be able to fit their case into pigeon holes whereas others might and therefore it would create unfairness and inequality.
Pigeonhole theory, although it has its advantages such as pigeon-holes can help find the right pigeon hole since each pigeon hole has a particular wrongdoing that can be identified which then provides an easier way to understand why one is being sued. Using pigeon-holes instead of general principles can lead to greater certainty because pigeon-holes are more reliable than general principles. Pigeon-holes also make it easier to decide whether someone is at fault, pigeon holes can also provide a more accessible way of understanding tort law because pigeon hole theory makes the law more understandable and less complicated which then benefits the public. However pigeon-holes do have disadvantages such as pigeon-holes cannot capture or define every type of harm under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing. This means unequal treatment as some plaintiffs might not be able to fit their case into pigeon holes whereas others might and therefore it would create unfairness and inequality which was not what Salmond had in mind when he advocated pigeon-holes theory.
As a result, pigeon holes cannot be used to create fairness and justice because pigeon-holes theoretic approach has both advantages and disadvantages. Pigeon-holes also make it easier to decide whether someone is at fault but pigeon holes do have disadvantages such as pigeon-holes cannot capture or define every type of harm under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing which can lead to unequal treatment between two people with one being able to get his/her case in pigeon holes whereas the other might not be able to get his/her case in pigeon holes thus creating unfairness and injustice.
>Write a conclusion on the above blog post
.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Salmond’s pigeon-holes theory has both advantages and disadvantages. Pigeon-holes make it easier to decide whether someone is at fault but pigeon holes do have disadvantages such as the inability to capture or define every type of harm under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing which can lead to unequal treatment between two people with one being able to get his/her case in pigeon holes whereas the other might not be able to get his/her case in pigeon holes thus creating unfairness and injustice. As Pigeon-holes cannot capture or define every type of harm under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion to give a remedy for this type of wrongdoing which can lead to unequal treatment between two people with one being able to get his/her case in pigeon holes whereas the other might not be able to get his/her case in pigeon holes thus creating unfairness and inequality.
In conclusion, Salmond’s theory has both advantages and disadvantages. Pigeonholes make it easier to decide whether someone is at fault but pigeon holes do have disadvantages such as the inability to capture or define every type of harm under tort law so if a plaintiff’s case does not fit neatly into any pigeon holes, judges may use their discretion
Passionate about using the law to make a difference in people’s lives. An Advocate by profession.
