DOUBLE TROUBLE :

An In-depth analysis of “how Conspiracy makes torts worse ? ”

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

MANAS KEJRIWAL Dr. Prateek Deol Sir
46123210016 [B.B.A LL.B (Hons.)] Assistant Professor

COURSE: Law of Torts and Consumer Protection (23LCC205)

SRM UNIVERSITY, DELHI-NCR SONEPAT
.

Imagine Joey, a talented young artist, is on the verge of his big break. A prestigious
gallery owner expresses interest in showcasing his art. But his dreams are shattered
when a series of negative online reviews mysteriously appear, criticizing his art
and questioning his originality. He soon realizes that these reviews are not from
genuine art critics, but from a rival artist, Maria. Maria, being envious of Joey's
talent, conspired with a tech-savvy friend to create fake online profiles and
bombard joey's work with negative reviews. This malicious plot is a clear example
of conspiracy, which led to a tort. Torts, as we know is a civil wrong for which the
remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not
exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other mere equitable
obligation. Such wrongs can be either intentional (assault, battery, defamation etc.)
or unintentional (negligence). In the scenario mentioned above Maria’s conspiracy
to spread fake reviews constitutes intentional wrongdoing aimed at tarnishing
Joey’s reputation and career. Conspiracy, in law of torts occurs when two or more
individuals agree to commit a wrongful act, but this situation is worse than if a
single person had acted alone. It Is because when multiple people work together,
the chances of their plan succeeding are higher. If taken with reference from above
scenario, the coordinated effort of maria and her friend made it more difficult for
joey to identify the source of negative reviews. Furthermore, the conspirators can
anticipate and plan for the potential consequences of their action, making the harm
more foreseeable. Also, a conspiracy inherently involves an intention to cause
harm, making it more flagrant. In order to establish a conspiracy several key
elements are required Firstly, there must be an evidence of meeting of minds
between the conspirators i.e. a shared understanding of the wrongful act they
intend to commit. Secondly, atleast one party must take a concrete step towards
carrying out the unlawful plan. Thirdly, the intended act itself needs to be a tort or
some other form of wrongdoing. In Joey's case, the creation of fake reviews would
likely be considered a form of defamation and Lastly, the plaintiff must have
suffered actual damages as a result of the conspiracy.
Conspiracy, in the context of tort law, goes beyond the actions of a single
individual. It refers to an agreement between two or more people to commit a
wrongful act. This agreement makes the situation worse for the victim compared to
a solo act because it often leads to Increased probability of success, Greater
foreseeability of harm and enhanced intent to injure.
The element of agreement mainly focuses on the shared understanding between the
conspirators. There must be evidence that the parties involved came together with a
specific goal of committing a wrongful act. The agreement itself can be explicit
(verbal or written) or implicit (inferred from their actions). For instance, an
insurance adjuster conspired with a repair shop owner to inflate repair costs on a
damaged car. Emails and phone records provided evidence of their communication
and agreement to defraud the insurance company. Another example would be
where two business partners conspired to divert corporate funds for personal use.
The act of transferring company money into their individual accounts served as the
overt act in the conspiracy. This element requires that at least one of the
conspirators takes a concrete step towards carrying out the unlawful plan. Simply
discussing the wrongful act isn't enough. There must be a physical manifestation of
their agreement. Also, there must be an unlawful act and an Injury. The agreement
establishes the joint wrongdoing, the overt act demonstrates the intent to act on the
plan, the unlawful act identifies the specific tort committed, and the injury
highlights the harm caused to the plaintiff.
When a conspiracy is established, all the conspirators can be held jointly and
severally liable for the full extent of the damages suffered by the plaintiff. This
means the plaintiff can choose to sue any one conspirator, or all of them, to recover
the full amount of damages. The conspirators acted in concert with a shared
intention to commit the wrongful act, the law holds them equally responsible for
the consequences. This incentivizes all parties to the conspiracy to avoid
participating in such schemes, knowing they can be held fully accountable for the
harm caused. Conspiracy law can extend liability to individuals who may not have
directly committed the tort itself, but who knowingly participated in the
conspiracy. This can include people who firstly, Provided resources or assistance to
facilitate the wrongful act. Secondly, Helped to conceal the conspiracy or its
consequences and Lastly, Knew about the plan and took no steps to prevent it. By
knowingly participating in the conspiracy, even if indirectly, these individuals
contribute to the harm caused. Holding them liable discourages others from aiding
or abetting such wrongful acts. proving a conspiracy can lead to an award of
punitive damages. These are additional damages awarded on top of the
compensatory damages (to cover actual losses) to punish the defendant for
egregious or malicious conduct. When someone is hurt by a conspiracy, they may
be able to sue the people involved and ask for extra money called "punitive
damages." This money is meant to punish the people who conspired and to
discourage others from doing the same thing. In order to get punitive damages, the
person who was hurt usually has to show that the people who conspired did so on
purpose and caused a lot of harm. The rules for getting punitive damages can be
different depending on where the lawsuit is taking place. It can be hard to prove
that people conspired together because it's not common for them to leave written
proof of their agreement. When someone is accused of being part of a conspiracy,
it can be hard to prove that they took a clear step towards carrying out the illegal
plan. Just making plans or taking small steps towards the plan might not be
enough. Sometimes, it can be difficult to tell the difference between planning and
actually starting to carry out the plan. This is because the early stages of a
conspiracy might look a lot like regular planning or preparation. Figuring out who
was involved in a conspiracy and what they did can be a difficult and complicated
process. The person who is bringing the lawsuit might not know everything about
the people involved in the conspiracy or what they did. The law strives to hold
conspirators accountable without hindering legitimate business collaborations.
Sharing information, planning strategies, or even engaging in competitive practices
don't necessarily constitute a conspiracy. When people work together to commit a
wrongful act, it can be much harder to detect and prevent. This is because they can
support each other, cover up evidence, and create elaborate plans. For example, if
several people conspire to steal a company's trade secrets, they may each have a
specific role to play, making it difficult for the company to protect its information.
Moreover, when people conspire, they often intend to cause more harm than if they
acted alone. To prevent conspiracy, it's important for organizations to promote a
culture of ethics and transparency. The legal system recognizes the seriousness of
conspiracy by imposing tougher penalties on those who engage in it, and
organizations can prevent conspiracy by promoting a culture of ethics and
transparency. Conspiracy can significantly amplify the harm caused by a tort,
leading to more severe consequences for the victim and a greater liability for the
wrongdoers. When multiple parties conspire to commit a tortious act, they can
cause more extensive damage than a single individual acting alone. The combined
resources, efforts, and expertise of the conspirators can lead to a more significant
impact, resulting in greater harm to the victim. A conspiracy can increase the
likelihood of the tort being repeated or continued over time. With multiple parties
involved, it becomes more challenging to detect and stop the wrongful behavior,
allowing it to persist and cause ongoing harm. When several parties are involved in
a conspiracy, they may each believe that their individual role is insignificant,
leading to a diffusion of responsibility. This can result in a lack of accountability
and a greater propensity to engage in harmful behavior. Conspirators may
collaborate to cover up their wrongdoing, destroy evidence, or intimidate
witnesses. These actions can obstruct justice and make it more difficult for the
victim to seek redress, further exacerbating the harm caused by the tort. In some
cases, the involvement of multiple parties in a conspiracy can lead to increased
media attention and public scrutiny, causing additional reputational
harm to the victim. In tort law, conspirators can be held jointly and severally liable
for the harm caused by their actions. This means that each party involved in the
conspiracy can be held responsible for the entirety of the damages, regardless of
their individual role in the wrongdoing. Additionally, victims may be entitled to
punitive damages, which are intended to punish the defendants and deter others
from engaging in similar behavior. When a group of people come together to plan
and execute a wrongful act, the chances of them being able to cause harm to
someone or something significantly increases. This is because they can combine
their resources, skills, and knowledge to create a more effective and far-reaching
plan. They can also provide each other with support and encouragement, making it
easier to follow through with the wrongful act. Additionally, when multiple parties
are involved, it can be more challenging to detect and prevent the harm, as there
are more people working together to keep it hidden. This increased likelihood of
success can lead to more severe consequences for the victim, as well as greater
legal liability for the wrongdoers. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the risks
associated with group wrongdoing and take steps to prevent and address any
harm that may occur. When a wrongful act is committed the conspirators often
think about and prepare for the possible outcomes of their actions. This means that
they consider the potential consequences of their behavior and make plans to deal
with any negative fallout. By anticipating and planning for the consequences,
conspirators can make the harm they cause more foreseeable. This means that it is
more likely to happen, and the victim can be more prepared for it.
In a conspiracy, multiple parties work together to achieve a common goal, which is
to cause harm. They may spend a significant amount of time and resources
planning and executing their actions, demonstrating a greater level of intentionality
than a single act. This heightened intention to cause harm can lead to more severe
consequences for the victim, as conspirators may be more likely to engage in
extensive and repeated wrongful acts. Additionally, a conspiracy can have a
broader impact on society, as it may involve multiple parties working together to
cause harm to a larger group of people or to a fundamental social institution. This
can lead to a breakdown of trust and a greater sense of insecurity in society,
making a conspiracy more egregious than a single act.
Furthermore, conspiracy often involves a greater degree of moral blameworthiness,
as it involves a deliberate decision to engage in wrongdoing with others. This can
be more damaging to the fabric of society, as it undermines the principles of trust
and cooperation that are essential for social cohesion.
Proving a conspiracy can result in wider responsibility in tort cases because it can
implicate multiple parties in the wrongdoing, rather than just one. In a conspiracy,
two or more parties work together to commit a wrongful act, and each party is
typically aware of and agrees to the plan. This means that each party can be held
liable for the harm caused by the conspiracy, even if they did not directly cause the
harm. Joint and several liability is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover
the full amount of damages from any of the defendants who have been found
liable, rather than just a portion of the damages from each defendant. This is
because, in a conspiracy, each party is deemed to have worked together to commit
the wrongdoing, and therefore all parties are equally responsible for the harm
caused. When multiple parties are involved in a conspiracy, liability can be
extended to parties who may not have directly committed the tort, but who
participated in the conspiracy. This means that parties who aided, abetted, or
encouraged the wrongdoing can be held liable for the harm caused, even if they did
not directly cause the harm. This principle is based on the idea that a conspiracy is
a collaborative effort, and that all parties involved are responsible for the harm
caused by the conspiracy. In order to establish liability for a party who did not
directly commit the tort, plaintiffs must prove that the party knew about the
conspiracy and participated in it with the intention of furthering the wrongful act.
Courts are more likely to award punitive damages in cases of conspiracy because
conspiracy involves a heightened intention to cause harm, making it more
egregious than a single act. The amount of punitive damages awarded in cases of
conspiracy can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances
of the case. In some cases, punitive damages may be limited to a certain multiple
of the compensatory damages awarded, such as three times the amount of
compensatory damages. In other cases, there may be no statutory limit on the
amount of punitive damages that can be awarded.
Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). In this case, the plaintiff, a
private individual, brought a defamation action against the publisher of a magazine
that had published an article accusing him of arranging a "frameup" and implying
that he had a criminal record. The Supreme Court held that a publisher or
broadcaster of defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public
official nor a public figure may not claim the New York Times protection against
liability for defamation, and that the States may define for themselves the
appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory
falsehoods that injure a private individual. Proving a conspiracy can be particularly
challenging in tort claims, as it requires clear evidence of an unlawful agreement
and the meeting of minds between the conspirators. To establish the meeting of
minds, it must be shown that the parties involved in the conspiracy had a common
understanding and shared intention to commit the wrongful act. This can be
difficult to prove, as the agreement may have been reached through indirect
communication or inference. Moreover, in order to prove a conspiracy, it is not
enough to simply show that the parties acted in a similar manner or had similar
goals. Rather, there must be evidence of an actual agreement between the parties to
commit the unlawful act. The need for clear evidence of an unlawful agreement
can also pose challenges in proving a conspiracy. This is because conspirators
often take steps to conceal their actions and avoid leaving a paper trail. As a result,
it may be necessary to rely on circumstantial evidence, such as patterns of behavior
or suspicious coincidences, to establish the existence of a conspiracy. The difficulty
in proving a conspiracy arises from the fact that conspirators often take steps to
conceal their actions and avoid leaving a paper trail. This can make it challenging
to find direct evidence of an unlawful agreement. Instead, plaintiffs may need to
rely on circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious coincidences, patterns of
behavior, or other indirect evidence, to establish the existence of a conspiracy. In
addition to the challenge of proving the existence of an unlawful agreement,
plaintiffs must also show that the parties involved in the conspiracy had a shared
intent to commit the wrongful act. This can be difficult to prove, as the agreement
may have been reached through indirect communication or inference. To overcome
these challenges, plaintiffs may need to present a range of evidence, such as
emails, text messages, witness testimony, or other forms of documentation, to
support their claim. They may also need to rely on expert witnesses, such as
forensic accountants or investigators, to help establish the existence of a
conspiracy. In some cases, plaintiffs may also need to overcome legal hurdles, such
as the requirement to show that the conspiracy caused a specific harm or injury.
This can be a significant challenge, particularly in cases where the harm caused by
the conspiracy is indirect or difficult to quantify. In conspiracies, digital
communication records can help establish the meeting of minds and the existence
of an unlawful agreement between conspirators. Additionally, data from electronic
devices, such as GPS location data, can provide evidence of coordinated actions
and the involvement of multiple parties in the commission of a tort. However, the
use of technology in proving conspiracy also presents challenges. The abundance
of digital information can make it difficult to identify and isolate relevant evidence,
and the ease of creating and deleting digital records can make it challenging to
establish the authenticity and reliability of the evidence. Furthermore, the use of
encrypted messaging apps and other secure communication channels can make it
difficult for law enforcement and prosecutors to monitor and detect conspiracy.
The rise of deepfake technology, which can be used to manipulate digital records
and create false evidence, also presents new challenges in proving conspiracy. In
the digital age, conspiracy can be facilitated and amplified through electronic
communication, making it crucial for legal frameworks to address this issue
effectively. As electronic communication becomes increasingly prevalent, it's
essential for law enforcement and prosecutors to have access to this evidence.
Reforms could include simplifying the process for obtaining electronic evidence,
such as emails, text messages,etc. Proving conspiracy requires evidence of a
meeting of minds and an unlawful agreement. However, this can be challenging,
especially in cases involving electronic communication. Regarding the challenges
in proving a conspiracy, it's true that establishing the meeting of minds and the
existence of an unlawful agreement can be difficult, especially in cases involving
electronic communication. This is because conspirators may use coded language or
communicate through encrypted channels, making it challenging to identify the
unlawful agreement. Additionally, electronic communication can be easily deleted
or manipulated, further complicating efforts to gather evidence. Despite these
challenges, there are ways to overcome them. For example, forensic analysis of
electronic devices can help to uncover deleted or hidden messages, while analysis
of metadata can provide valuable information about the timing and frequency of
communications. Additionally, witness testimony and circumstantial evidence can
be used to help establish the meeting of minds and the existence of an unlawful
agreement. Evolving technology and communication methods, such as encrypted
messaging apps and deepfake technology, present new challenges in proving
conspiracy. However, they also offer new opportunities for gathering evidence,
such as through the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms.
Conspiracy law is important for deterring people from intentionally doing harm to
others and for making sure the legal system is fair and just when it comes to
resolving disputes. When a group of people work together to commit a wrongful
act, it can cause more harm than if a single person did it alone. Conspiracy law
makes sure all members of the group are held accountable for their actions and
must pay for any damages they caused. Furthermore, conspiracy law can help to
uncover and fix bigger issues that may be causing people to do wrongful acts. By
holding all members of the group accountable, it can help to expose and address
problems, such as fraudulent business practices or corrupt officials, and encourage
changes to prevent similar wrongdoing in the future.

References:-
1) https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
tenn74&div=20&id=&page=
2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/category/keywords/tort_law
3) https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/
law_issues_for_consumers/injury_basis/
4) https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/fraud-crimes/health-care-fraud
5) https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/
flr76&div=68&id=&page=