Tort Law 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebookmass.com/product/tort-law-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Law of tort 12. ed. Edition Cooke John

https://ebookmass.com/product/law-of-tort-12-ed-edition-cooke-
john/

The Structure of Tort Law Nils Jansen

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-structure-of-tort-law-nils-
jansen/

Principles of Criminal Law 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-criminal-law-6th-
edition-ebook-pdf/

Criminal Law Today 6th Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/criminal-law-today-6th-edition-
ebook-pdf-version/
Information Privacy Law (Aspen Casebook Series) 6th
Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/information-privacy-law-aspen-
casebook-series-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Introduction to Business Law 6th Edition Jeffrey F.

Beatty

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-business-law-6th-
edition-jeffrey-f-beatty/

eTextbook 978-0134163734 Criminal Law Today (6th

Edition)

https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-0134163734-criminal-
law-today-6th-edition/

Essentials of Business Law 6th Edition Jeffrey F.

Beatty

https://ebookmass.com/product/essentials-of-business-law-6th-
edition-jeffrey-f-beatty/

Introducing Physical Geography, 6th Edition 6th

Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/introducing-physical-geography-6th-
edition-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
principles of a corporation. Similarly, the local, state, and national
communities have “public policies” that dictate the norms of the
community or the public based on its beliefs and values regarding justice,
fairness, and equality. Judges may consider public policy to determine the
impact their rulings or legal principles will have on society as a whole.
Net News
For an overview of tort law and what it encompasses, go
to http://www.law.cornell.edu. Scroll down to “Popular Topics” and select
“Accidents and Injuries.”
All laws, including tort law, are based in some part on the public policy of
the society and/or the community. To find the public policy underlying a
law, one must look at the rationale or reason for the law. For example, a
community may have an ordinance that prohibits the opening of an adult
book store within 300 feet of an elementary school. The public policy
underlying such an ordinance is the community policy or value that young
children should not be exposed to adult book stores and their patrons.
Understanding public policy is essential to understanding tort law.
Why, you might ask, must the interest of society be considered when
dealing with a dispute between two individuals? Because our common law
system is based on case precedent, every decision rendered by a court has
the potential of establishing a rule that must be followed by other courts.
Society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that disputes between
litigants are resolved through a process of resolution that is fair and just
for all concerned. The very principles set forth today will be those that
govern the cases of tomorrow.

1-5 Morality of Conduct

Is the morality of a defendant’s conduct relevant in tort law? Although
personal morality may be subject to variation, tort law borrows heavily
from a sense of public morality. It can be said that, at least in certain
cases, we all have a sense of what is universally regarded as right and
wrong. Tort law generally reflects that sense.
There are circumstances, however, in which a defendant can be held liable
even though he or she has violated no moral code. One who, for example,
trespasses on the land of another in the reasonable belief that it is his own
land is still liable for trespass. With the increasing popularity of no-fault
torts, such as strict liability, we appear to be moving away from a need to
cast moral judgment on a defendant’s conduct. In contrast, tort law does
not deal with all blatantly immoral acts. Although it may be morally
reprehensible, for example, to allow a stranger to die when you could save
her, in most circumstances you will have committed no tort.

1-6 Slippery-Slope Arguments

Case precedent, the effect of a ruling on a future case, is a major part of
the development of tort law. Courts are often hesitant to crack open a legal
door in a particular case for fear of creating a “flood of litigation,” an
occurrence they are ever on the alert to avoid. For that reason, some types
of flagrant misdeeds are not vindicated by tort law. Relatively trivial
concerns must also go by the wayside in an effort to minimize the flood of
litigation. Many of our most grievous hurts are inflicted in the context of
interpersonal relationships and yet most of these must go without redress.
Lovers are jilted, children are verbally belittled by parents, friends are
“used,” and so on. The law cannot become enmeshed in these psychically
damaging events if the legal system is to avoid the administrative
nightmare created by an onslaught of cases. Clearly, not all human wrong
can be remedied.
Perhaps you have heard of the slippery-slope argumentArgument that
once you take a first step in allowing something in one instance, you are in
danger of sliding the “slippery slope” into a bottomless pit of
circumstances requiring comparable treatment, which means, essentially,
that use of an argument in one case will allow application of that same
argument in innumerable other cases. The metaphor is used to show that
once you take the first step, it is too easy to fall down the slippery slope to
the bottom of the hill, presumably into a morass of undesirable outcomes.
The slippery-slope argument is, in essence, an administrative concern. A
court fears that if it finds negligence on behalf of the sympathetic plaintiff
before it, hundreds of thousands of similarly situated individuals or those
whose situations are analogous to the case will also seek similar redress.
The precedential effect of arguments regarding physician-assisted suicide,
racial composition of juries, and the use of marijuana for medical
purposes are among the many slippery-slope issues considered by the
courts.
Keep in mind that, although courts are to focus on the long-term in making
their decisions, they sometimes are understandably sympathetic to the
plight of the individuals before them. In such cases they often render
decisions that meet the short-term goals of justice but that prove untenable
over the long run. Justice, you will soon discover, is an illusory goal that
often eludes capture by even the most conscientious judge.

1-7 Creation of Case Law

Tort law is largely a product of case lawCase-by-case decision making by
the court, which involves case-by-case decision making by the state
courts. This decision-making process is affected, to some degree, by
statutes, which the courts are mandated to follow unless statutory gaps
exist that leave a court with unanswered questions. Some statutes, such as
the wrongful death and survival acts, directly address issues that arise in
the context of tort law. Others, such as certain criminal statutes, serve as
guidelines to the courts in establishing policy. A statute, for example, that
makes it a misdemeanor to drive while under the influence of alcohol sets
forth the standard of care expected of drivers. A driver having a blood
alcohol level in excess of the statutory limit would be considered to have
breached the duty of care he owed to those around him.
Another guideline that courts use in formulating their holdings is
the Restatement of the Law of Torts. The Restatement was compiled by
eminent legal scholars and practitioners in an attempt to provide lawyers
and judges with black-letter lawLegal principles generally accepted by
the legal community(legal principles generally accepted by the legal
community, also referred to as black-letter law) of tort law. Adopted in
many jurisdictions, the Restatement is frequently cited in court opinions.
Although criticized for creating the impression of uniformity in the law
where there is none, the Restatement is nevertheless a frequently used
guide through the maze of tort law decisions. For this reason,
the Restatement is often cited throughout this text. Keep in mind, however,
that your state may not have adopted the Restatement position. Consult the
case law in your state when dealing with a specific case.
Net News
To learn more about the American Law Institute, which publishes
the Restatements, and to gain a better understanding of what
the Restatements are and how they are compiled, go to your favorite search
engine and locate the archives of the American Law Institute. Refine your
search under “Collections.”

1-8 Relationship Between Tort Law and Other

Areas of the Law
1-8a Torts versus Crimes
How does a tort differ from a crime? Although the two share several
similarities, they differ in terms of the interests affected, the remedy
granted, standard of proof, and procedural mechanisms used (see Exhibit
1–2). A crime is considered an offense against society, whereas a tort is an
offense against another individual or group of individuals. The purpose of
prosecuting someone who has committed a crime is to vindicate the
interests of society by punishing the offender. The purpose of suing in tort,
in contrast, is to compensate the victim.
Although the primary purpose of criminal law is punishment and the
primary purpose of tort law is compensation, there is some overlap
between the two. Compensation given to the victim of a crime (known
as restitution Compensation for a crime given to the victim) is frequently
used by the courts as part of an offender’s sentence. By the same token,
punitive damages, which are intended to punish the tortfeasor One who
has committed a tort (one who has committed a tort), are used in certain
circumstances in tort law. Despite this overlap, the primary functions of
criminal law and tort law remain distinct.
Exhibit 1–2
Torts versus Crimes
TORTS CRIMES
PURPOSE Compensation Punishment
STANDARD OF PROOF Preponderance of Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
INTERESTS VIOLATED Individual's Interest Society's Interest
PROCEDURAL RULES Civil Rules Criminal Rules

Moreover, the rules of civil procedure are used in tort cases, whereas the
rules of criminal procedure are used in criminal cases. Also, the plaintiff’s
burden of proof in a tort case requires proof by a preponderance of the
evidence Standard of proof requiring a showing that each element is more
probable than not; the state’s burden of proof in a criminal case is
proof beyond a reasonable doubt Standard of proof requiring a showing
of almost absolute certainty for each element. The rules of evidence
applicable in criminal cases vary from those applicable in civil cases.
Many acts may be both a crime against the state and a tort against the
individual. If a drunk driver, for example, is involved in a vehicular
accident, she may be charged with a criminal offense as well as sued by
the injured parties for negligence. For this reason (among others) those
charged with criminal offenses often plead nolo contenderePleas of “no
contest”; not an admission of guilt (no contest). If they were to plead
guilty, their admission of guilt could be used against them in a subsequent
civil trial, whereas a plea of nolo contendere could not. This is true,
however, only if the issue tried in the criminal case is also relevant to
some aspect of the tort action. Because of the lower standard of proof in a
civil case, the plaintiff in a tort case will have an easier time establishing
liability than the state will have proving guilt in a criminal case. In the
trial of the twentieth century, the defendant O. J. Simpson was acquitted of
criminal charges and found liable for the same conduct under tort
principles in a civil case.
clear and convincing evidenceClear and convincing evidence requires a
higher burden of persuasion than “preponderance of the evidence” but less
than that required by “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In most states the
standard requires the judge or jury to find the evidence submitted is
substantially more likely to be true than not true is a standard required in
some administrative hearings and certain civil and criminal proceedings.
It is, for example, the standard the state must meet to prove property is
subject to forfeiture as well as the burden for plaintiffs who allege fraud
and is also applicable to paternity and some probate issues.

1-8b Torts versus Contracts

Tort law differs from contract law in terms of the voluntariness of entering
into an agreement. When two or more parties create a contract, they each
agree to give up something in return for receiving some benefit. In a
contract action, the parties have voluntarily and knowingly assumed duties
or obligations to others. In tort law, by contrast, duties are imposed by the
law without the express consent or awareness of those involved (Exhibit
1–3). If a guest is injured on a landowner’s premises, the landowner is
liable, not because he expressly contracted to prevent injury to the guest,
but because the law imposes certain obligations on him by virtue of being
a landowner.
The remedy in a contract case is to compensate the prevailing party with
the benefit of the bargain. In other words, the remedy is to provide them
with what was expected under the contract. In a tort case the remedy is
much broader and the victim of a tort may be awarded monetary damages
for pain and suffering, economic damages, and punitive damages.
Exhibit 1–3
Torts versus Contracts
TORTS CONTRACTS
DUTIES ASSIGNED Imposed by Law By Parties' Consent
OBLIGATIONS MADE TO Society in General Specific Individuals

Just as with criminal law, however, there is an overlap between tort law
and contract law. Certain tort duties may coincide with those duties set
forth in a contract, for example, so that if a party fails to live up to its
obligations, an action may lie in either tort or contract. Additionally, some
quasi-contractual obligations (such as the obligation to act in good faith)
are imposed by law without the consent of the parties, just as in tort law.
One other distinction between contract and tort law is that in contract law,
obligations are made to specific individuals by virtue of an agreement of
the parties; whereas in tort law, duties are imposed by law and owed to
society. In tort law, one is bound to act as a reasonable person toward all
other persons, but in contract law one is bound in contract only to certain
chosen individuals. This distinction is not completely valid, however, in
that tort law principles impose special duties in some cases because of the
relationship one has with another. An employer, for example, owes duties
of care to her employees that she does not owe to other persons.
You will find as you pursue your study of torts that this area of law
overlaps with most other areas of law. Therefore, you will frequently find
yourself referring to knowledge that you have gained from the study of
property law, constitutional law, criminal law, contract law, corporate law,
and so on.

1-9 Brief History of Tort Law

If this is the point in most textbooks where you skip ahead, try to
persevere. You might be surprised at how interesting the evolution of tort
law really is (Exhibit 1–4).
Exhibit 1–4
Evolution of Tort Law
Blood feud (no fault)
Action in trespass (no fault)
(Vi et armis)
(Direct use of force)
Trespass on the case (wrongful intent or negligence)
(No force or indirect injury)
Negligence (fault required)
 Strict liability (no fault)

In barbaric societies the only “law” that seemed to control group behavior
had its roots in the blood feud. The protocol of the blood feud required that
the clan go to war against any outsider who inflicted harm on a clan
member, thereby dishonoring the clan as a whole. Atonement for the
humiliation suffered by the victim’s kin seemed the primary goal.
Despite the obvious deterrence this system of justice provided, its inherent
violence and its toll on those who were obligated to protect family and
clan members prompted reform. Ultimately a negotiation process was
developed in which the victim summoned the perpetrator to the “moot”—a
forum in which the victim pleaded his case to the community and asked
for a redress of his grievance. Community members offered advice about
how best to resolve the dispute. When a solution acceptable to both victim
and perpetrator was found, the parties dispersed and the blood feud was
averted.
When the law first assumed a more civilized veneer, the remedies created
served as substitutes for the feuding process, and thus emerged the concept
of monetary compensation. Early in Anglo-Saxon history, individuals were
assigned a monetary value based principally on their rank. Money instead
of blood was offered as a salve for injured clan pride. Compensation was
directed toward the clan rather than the individual, and awards were
distributed proportionately among the injured person’s relatives. There
was no distinction between crimes and torts. Furthermore, there seemed to
be no concern regarding issues of fault or blameworthiness. Even the most
remote causal connection was sufficient to justify the imposition of
punishment.
Interestingly enough, during this same time period vengeance was exacted
on whatever was determined to be the immediate cause of death, even if it
was an animal or inanimate object. The offending object, be it a horse or a
sword, might be turned over to the victim or the victim’s family to be used
as they saw fit, or delivered to the king.

1-9a Action in Trespass

Over time the moot process of dispute resolution led to the establishment
of certain fundamental rules. Communities discovered, through trial and
error, those decisions that led to the greatest peace and harmony.
Following the Norman Conquest, the dispute resolution process fell to the
royal justices of the king’s courts. They soon discovered that following the
already established local rules provided optimal efficiency in resolving
conflict. As a result, the local rules eventually evolved into what is now
known as the common law.
The action in trespassEarly cause of action involving serious, forcible
breaches of peace that evolved to encompass even minor physical contact;
no showing of fault was required, which emerged sometime in the middle
of the thirteenth century, was one of the products of the common law
evolution. This action, which was basically of a criminal nature, dealt with
serious and forcible breaches of peace. One of its requirements was the
showing of force and arms, referred to as vi et armis.
The plaintiff had to allege that the defendant had used force directly on the
plaintiff’s person or property, thus the term vi et armis appeared in every
writ of trespass as a matter of course. No further showing of
blameworthiness or fault on the part of the defendant was necessary. As
time went on, however, even mild, innocuous physical contact was
sufficient for the plaintiff to prevail in a trespass action, and the pleading
of vi et armis became a mere technical device.
To see an example of a trespass in action, read the whimsically written
case of Tricoli v. Centalanza. Do not be concerned if you do not fully
understand the legal arguments, because we have not yet discussed the
legal concepts at issue. In essence, the appellate court concluded that the
trial court was justified in requiring only one of the defendants to pay all
of the plaintiff’s damages and in assessing damages even though the
plaintiff’s damages were arguably inconsequential.
Case
Tricoli v. Centalanza et al.
126 A. 214 (1924) Supreme Court of New Jersey. Oct. 8, 1924
“Run away, Maestro Juan, I am going to kill you.” Such was the ferocious
threat that disturbed the atmosphere, not of prehistoric Mexico, where
upon desolate plains the savage coyote still bays at the moon, nor yet of
classic Verona, where dramatic memories of the houses of Montague and
Capulet still linger to entrance the romantic wayfarer, but from the
undiluted atmosphere of Bloomfield Avenue, where it winds its attractive
course through the prim rococo shades of modern Montclair, which upon
the day succeeding Christmas in 1923 sat like Roma immortalis upon its
seven hills, and from its throne of beauty contemplated with serene
satisfaction the peace and tranquility of the modern world.
The Maestro, however, with true chivalric disdain, refused to retreat, but
determined at all hazards, like Horatius, to hold the bridge, or rather the
stoop, upon which he stood. Like a true Roman, inoculated with the
maximum percentage of American patriotism, he turned defiantly to the
oncoming house of Centalanza, and proclaimed in the bellicose language
of the day, “You too son of a gun.”
In the days of the Montague and Capulet, aristocratic rapiers and swords
defended the honor of their respective houses; but in this day of popular
progress the Maestro and the Centalanza sought only the plebeian defense
of fists and a shovel. As a result of a triangular contest, the physician
testified that the Maestro was battered “from head to buttocks”—a
distribution of punishment, it may be observed, which, while it may not be
entirely aesthetic in its selection of a locum tenens, was to say the least
equitably administered and distributed. Indeed, so much was the Maestro
battered that his daily toil lost him for 12 days, and the trial court
estimated that this loss, together with his pain and suffering, and the
aggravation of the trespass, entitled him to receive from the house of
Centalanza $240.
The latter, however, has appealed, and alleges that the Maestro proved no
substantial cause of action against them. But the learned trial court, upon
this contested state of facts, concluded, and we think properly, that there
was an issue of fact thus presented, since the suit was for assault and
battery in the nature of trespass vi et armis. But the defendants Centalanza
insist that two distinct encounters took place, one by both defendants, and
the other by one only, and they ask: How can such a physical contretemps
be admeasured, so as to impose upon each member of the house of
Centalanza his fair share of compensation for his physical contribution to
the melee? The inquiry possesses its latent difficulties, but, since it is an
admitted rule of law that the court will not distribute the damages between
tortfeasors, upon any theory of equitable admeasurement, the house of
Centalanza obviously must bear the entire loss, without seeking a partition
thereof. . . .
Indeed, it would prove to be a rare feat of judicial acumen were the court
to attempt to give due credit to Donato Centalanza for the prowess he
displayed in his fistic endeavors, and to assess to Raffale Centalanza his
mead of financial contribution for the dexterity with which he wielded his
handy implement of excavation. It is doubtful, even in these days of the
mystic prize ring, whether such a metaphysical test may be included
among the accredited mental accomplishments of a quasi-militant
judiciary, which, while it occasionally indulges in a caustic punch, still
strenuously endeavors to maintain the proverbial respectability and regal
poise of its ancestral prototype. In such a situation we are not inclined to
impose this extraordinary and novel field of jurisdiction upon our inferior
courts. The occurrence of trespass vi et armis confers upon the trial court
the right to assess exemplary damages as smart money, and this the trial
court properly did under the circumstances of the case. . . .
It is contended, however, that the actual damage sustained by the Maestro
was inconsequential, and that the rule, “De minimis non curat lex,”
applies. It must be obvious, however, that damage which to the attending
physician seemed to penetrate the Maestro “from head to buttocks” may
seem trivial to us as noncombatants, but to the Maestro it manifestly
seemed otherwise, and doubtless punctured his corpus, as well as his
sensibilities. Indeed, he well might declare in the language of the gallant
Mercutio of Verona, concerning the extent of his wound: “It is not as wide
as a church door, or as deep as a well, but’ twill serve.”
The judgment will be affirmed.

1-9b Trespass on the Case

The action in trespass was highly restrictive in that it precluded recovery
by those who could show no use or only indirect use of force by the
defendant. A companion form of action known as trespass on the
caseEarly cause of action involving injuries inflicted indirectly and
requiring some showing of faultarose to allow recovery in the absence of
force or in cases where an injury was inflicted indirectly. A plaintiff who
was injured when the defendant wielded a plank of wood against him
could pursue an action in trespass to redress his injuries, whereas a
plaintiff who tripped over that same piece of wood left carelessly in her
path by the defendant had to resort to an action on the case.
Although damage to the plaintiff was implied in an action in trespass, the
plaintiff in a trespass on the case was required to show injury and damage.
Trespass-on-the-case actions demanded proof of the defendant’s wrongful
intent or negligence, whereas an action in trespass required no showing of
fault. Trespass on the case was frequently used as a means of recovering
for breach of a legal duty grounded on custom. Those who served the
public, such as innkeepers, were frequently the defendants in such cases.

1-9c Negligence
The development of public transportation seems to have had a profound
influence on the evolution of tort law. As the courts were faced with more
traffic-related cases, they came to the realization that decisions
mechanically rendered in favor of victims under the trespass theory
(which merely required the showing of direct force) would have a
prohibitive effect on the use of highways. Under this approach, few could
afford to risk traveling on the highways and losing their fortunes as a
result of an accident. Thus, the idea of negligence emerged as a
compromise. Travelers were granted some measure of protection from
liability as long as they drove in such a manner that they reduced the risk
of accidents.
The rise of negligence as a cause of action coincided with the
disintegration of actions in trespass and trespass on the case, although
negligence ultimately assumed many of the characteristics of a trespass-
on-the-case action. The distinction between trespass and trespass on the
case has basically disappeared except in a few states where some trace of
the distinction has been retained through common law pleadings. One
vestige of the distinction that continues to hang on, however, is the
necessity of proving damages. Torts that trace their ancestry back to
trespass require no proof of actual damages; those that trace back to
trespass on the case do require such proof. Although reminders of these
dinosaurs of tort law emerge occasionally, they have for the most part been
replaced by the modern torts that are the subject of this text.

1-10 Coming Full Circle

This brief overview of the development of tort law demonstrates the
cyclical evolution of our attitude toward the notion of fault. Strict liability
(no fault) reigned supreme during early Anglo-Saxon law and was evident
in the action in trespass. Only in actions on the case did the notion of duty
and neglect arise. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, strict
liability has once again assumed importance in our legal system. More and
more modern courts are assigning liability even where there is no showing
of fault.
How did this notion of no fault assume such importance in tort law? To
understand, we must look back to the scientific revolution that followed
the Civil War. Influenced by the technological wonders of the Industrial
Revolution, intellectuals embraced the supremacy of scientific thought.
Legal scholars, led by Oliver Wendell Holmes (an influential Supreme
Court Justice), also adopted the scientific paradigm as they sought to
create common principles that specified when individuals were entitled to
compensation for the wrongs they had suffered. In so doing, these
“scientific” scholars created a general duty of care that resulted in a fault
theory of tort law.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, problems of poverty and social
disadvantage began to be seen as societal rather than individual problems.
Increasingly the government was called upon to intervene and redress the
wrongs visited upon individuals. The tort “scientists,” who had been
content to systematically catalog the rules of tort law, gave way to the
legal “realists,” who saw themselves more as revolutionaries than as mere
observers. No longer content with rules that created fair results between
parties, these scholars strove for rules that equitably distributed losses. In
other words, tort law came to be viewed more as a means of creating a just
society than as simply a peaceful resolution of interpersonal disputes. The
fault theory of tort law was abandoned in favor of a system that provided
social justice. William Prosser, one of the most noted tort scholars and
author of one of the most influential treatises on tort law, advocated that
the purpose of tort law was to provide justice rather than to simply punish
and deter inappropriate conduct. He forcefully and successfully lobbied
for the adoption of strict liability in reference to defective products on the
premise that liability should be borne by those best able to bear it (the
manufacturer).
For what reason have we taken this brief excursion through the historical
roots of tort law? Learning tort law is not just about memorizing case law
and legal principles. A true understanding of tort law requires a knowledge
of the purposes it serves and its relationship to societal goals and needs.
Much ado is being made today about the reform of tort law, but these
reforms have essentially arisen as members of society wrestle with certain
basic issues. Should society bear the cost of losses suffered by individuals,
or should that responsibility be shifted to the individual? What role should
fault play in tort law? Is the purpose of tort law merely to resolve disputes,
or is it to see that justice is done?
Looking into the mirror of the past often helps us better understand where
we are going in the future. Knowing the historical derivation of tort law
will give you some insights about the tort reforms advocated today.
Knowing how those who have come before us have answered the questions
raised above helps us as today’s legislators, voters, jurors, and judges
struggle to answer these same questions. In Chapter 16 we examine tort
reform issues. Those issues cannot be adequately addressed without
considering the philosophical implications they raise. Our brief interaction
with tort law of the past shows that these philosophical questions are
neither new nor easily resolved.

1-11 Classification of Torts

Today torts are divided into three categories, depending on the nature of
the defendant’s conduct: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.
By far the most common is negligence. The bulk of personal injury
practice centers around automobile accident cases, “slip and fall” cases,
and other types of cases in which someone failed to use reasonable care.
Strict liability is found to a lesser degree, usually in the context of product
liability. Intentional torts usually involve conduct that also constitutes a
crime such as a battery or an assault. Tort law differs from criminal law in
terms of the purposes, burden of proof, and procedural rules.
The organization of this text reflects the relative importance of each of
these tort classifications. Although considerable coverage is devoted to
negligence and related topics, relatively little consideration is given to
intentional torts. Although intentional torts are conceptually easier to
comprehend than negligence, negligence is addressed in depth because
paralegals must have a solid foundation in negligence when they begin
practicing, even if their understanding of intention is a bit superficial.
We divide our discussion into three separate areas, but you should be
aware that many torts may be based on any one of the three types of
conduct. Misrepresentation, for example, can be committed intentionally,
negligently, or with no fault (strict liability), as can defamation.
Malpractice is a tort based on negligence. Bad faith is primarily an
intentional tort. But many other causes of action are hybrids that defy
precise classification. Rather than trying to pigeonhole all torts into neat
categories, recognize that some distinctions are blurred.
1-12 Chapter Review
1-12a Summary
A tort can be defined as a civil wrong for which the victim receives
compensation in the form of damages. The feeling that socially
unreasonable conduct should be penalized underlies tort law, and much of
the case law is focused on determining what constitutes unreasonable
conduct. In some cases, however, reasonableness is not an issue because
the goal is to protect society no matter how reasonable the conduct.
Public policy concerns prevail throughout tort law. These concerns center
primarily around the ideals of justice, fairness, and equality held by the
public or the community and become community policies that provide the
purpose or rationale underlying the principles of tort law. One of the
philosophical dilemmas that permeates tort law is how much weight
should be placed on the needs of society when resolving disputes between
individuals. In balancing these needs, courts frequently resort to slippery-
slope arguments to justify their refusal to grant relief to sympathetic
plaintiffs.
Tort law is largely a product of common law, although statutes are, in
some instances, relied on. The courts frequently look to the Restatement of
the Law of Torts in formulating the law.
Although similar in some ways to crimes, torts differ in terms of purpose,
burden of proof, and procedural rules. Many acts are considered both a
crime and a tort. Torts differ from contracts in that the duties assigned
according to tort law are those imposed by law, whereas those assigned in
the context of contracts are by virtue of the party’s consent. Furthermore,
in contract law obligations are assumed toward specific individuals,
whereas tort law assumes that obligations are owed to society as a whole.
The origin of tort law can be traced back to the blood feud, which evolved
into the “moot” process of dispute resolution and ultimately developed
into the common law. When the concept of monetary compensation
emerged, it was directed toward the clan rather than the individual. The
action in trespass, which evolved in the thirteenth century, required proof
that the defendant used force directly on the plaintiff or his property. The
plaintiff did not, however, have to prove fault on the part of the defendant.
In contrast, trespass on the case allowed recovery even when the defendant
did not use force or inflicted injury indirectly. Proof of damages and the
defendant’s wrongful intent or negligence were, however, required in a
trespass-on-the-case action. The concept of negligence developed along
with the evolution of public transportation. At the same time, actions in
trespass and trespass on the case fell into disfavor and ultimately
disappeared. Strict liability has now assumed an important role in tort law
and is evidence of its cyclical evolution in that the law began with no fault
(action in trespass) and has now culminated in no fault. Tort law bears the
imprint of the “scientific” scholars and legal realists who sought its
reform.
Chapter Review
1-12b Key Terms

· action in trespassEarly cause of action involving serious,

forcible breaches of peace that evolved to encompass even minor
physical contact; no showing of fault was required

· beyond a reasonable doubtStandard of proof requiring a

showing of almost absolute certainty for each element

· black-letter lawLegal principles generally accepted by the

legal community

· case lawCase-by-case decision making by the court

· clear and convincing evidenceClear and convincing evidence

requires a higher burden of persuasion than “preponderance of
the evidence” but less than that required by “proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.” In most states the standard requires the judge
or jury to find the evidence submitted is substantially more
likely to be true than not true

· nolo contenderePleas of “no contest”; not an admission of

guilt

· preponderance of the evidenceStandard of proof requiring a

showing that each element is more probable than not

· public policyPolicy of the public or a community that dictates

the norms of the community based on its beliefs and values
regarding justice, fairness, and equality

· restitutionCompensation for a crime given to the victim

· slippery-slope argumentArgument that once you take a first

step in allowing something in one instance, you are in danger of
sliding the “slippery slope” into a bottomless pit of
circumstances requiring comparable treatment

· tortCivil wrong for which victim receives compensation in the

form of damages

· tortfeasorOne who has committed a tort

· trespass on the caseEarly cause of action involving injuries

inflicted indirectly and requiring some showing of fault
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"she may be dead, but you did not kill her. No one would kill Mary
Legs. Killing Mary Legs would be like killing the sun and the stars and
the sky, and even if a man could kill these things he would not do so,
and neither would he kill Mary Legs."
"I did not kill her on purpose," he introduced himself and told the King
about the Fly by Night's encounter with the Lambda-Xi field, of how
he had locked Saint Annabelle Leigh in the starboard storeroom to
die. "If I had not been so selfish," he concluded, "she would still be
alive today."
The King looked at him pityingly. "And now your hands are bloodied,
and you must seek her ghost."
"Yes," said Drake. "Now I must seek her ghost—and destroy it."
The King shook his head. "You may seek it all you want, and you may
even find it. But you will never destroy it, Nathaniel Drake. It will
destroy you. Knowing this, I will help you find it. Come with me."

He spoke a few words into an intercom at his elbow, then came

around the bar and led the way down a spiral staircase into a
subterranean room. Their entry brought vein-like ceiling lights into
luminescence, and the room turned out to be a large hall. Cushioned
chairs were arranged in rows on either side of a narrow ramp that
protruded from a velvet-curtained stage, and to the right of the stage,
a chromium piano stood.
"It is fitting that I tell you about her here," King Tutankhamen said, "for
this is where she danced. Come, we will take the best seats in the
house."
Drake followed him down the aisle to the juncture of stage and ramp.
The King seated him in the chair nearest the juncture and took the
adjacent chair for himself. Leaning back, he said, "Now I will begin.
"It was over three galactic years ago when she first walked into my
establishment. The tourists had not entirely forsaken Worldwellost in
those days, and I was still enjoying prosperity. The bar was bright and
bustling, but I saw her nevertheless the minute she stepped upon the
premises. Thin, she was, and pale, and I thought at first that she was
sick. When she sat down at the table by the door, I went immediately
over to her side.
"'Wine, would you like?' I asked, knowing as I do the revivifying
qualities of the grape. But she shook her head. 'No,' she said, 'I want
work.' 'But what can you do?' I asked. 'I can take off my clothes,' she
replied. 'Is there something else I need to know?' Looking at her more
closely, I saw that indeed there was nothing else she needed to
know; nevertheless, there is an art of sorts to bumps and grinds, and
this I told her. 'You have other girls who can show me the rudiments,'
she said. 'After that, it will be up to me.' 'What is your name?' I asked
then. 'Mary Legs,' she answered. 'It is not my real name, however,
and you will have to pay me in cash.' I took one more look at her, and
hired her on the spot.
"It developed that she had no aptitude for bumps and grinds. It also
developed that she did not need to have. The first time she danced,
only a dozen men sat here in this room and watched her. The second
time she danced, two dozen sat here. The next time she danced, the
room was packed, the bar was overflowing, and there was a line of
men waiting in the street. Some girls dance simply by walking. She
was one of them. She had what is called 'poetry of motion', but I think
it was her legs, really, that most men came to see. I will let you judge
for yourself. Incidentally, the piano which you will hear accompanying
her was played by me."
King Tutankhamen leaned forward, slid aside a small panel just
beneath the edge of the proscenium, and depressed several
luminescent buttons. Instantly the lights went out, and the velvet
curtains parted. A stereo-screen leaped into bright life, and a moment
later, Mary Legs, nee Annabelle Leigh, appeared upon it. So flawless
was the illusion that it was as though she had stepped upon the
stage.
Perfume reminiscent of the vineyards of Azure infiltrated the room.
Drake found breathing difficult.
She was wearing a standard stripper's outfit that could be removed
piece by piece. Hardly had she "appeared" upon the stage when the
first piece fluttered forth and disappeared. Three more followed in
swift succession. A fifth went just as she stepped, seemingly, out
upon the ramp.
"She was always that way," the King whispered. "I told her that she
should be coy, that she should tease, but she paid no attention. It was
as though she couldn't get her clothes off fast enough."
Drake barely heard him.

Mary Legs was moving down the ramp now, and now another
garment drifted forth and winked out of sight. He saw her breasts.
Chords sounded in the background. A progression of ninths and
elevenths. Her face was glowing; her eyes were slightly turned up.
Glazed.
Drake watched the final garment disappear into the mists of time. She
was down to sandals and cache-sexe now. Her slow walk down the
ramp continued.
There was poetry in the play of light upon her flesh, there was poetry
in her every motion. The flabby pectorals of beauty queens, she knew
not. Here was firmness; depth. Her hair burned with the yellow fires of
fall. An arpeggio like the tinkling of glass chimes leaped up and
formed a brief invisible halo over her head. At the base of the ramp
she went through a series of contemptuous bumps and grinds, then
returned casually the way she had come. Now there was a subtle
difference in her walk. Sweat broke out on Drake's face. His breath
burned in his throat. Eyes turned up, she saw no one, then or now;
knew no one, knew nothing but the moment. Her body writhed
obscenely. Notes fell around her like cool rain. Suddenly Drake
realized that she had not been flaunting her sex to the audience, but
to the worlds.
She began a second series of bumps and grinds. While it lacked
finesse, it was obscene beyond belief, and yet, in another sense, it
was somehow not obscene at all. There was something tantalizingly
familiar about it, so tantalizingly familiar that he could have sworn that
he had seen her dance before. And yet he knew perfectly well that he
had not.
His mind ceased functioning, and he sat there helplessly, a prisoner
of the moment. Presently she began a series of movements, a dance
of sorts that had in it the essence of every orgy known to mankind,
and yet simultaneously possessed a quality that had nothing
whatsoever to do with orgies, a quality that was somehow
transcendent ... and austere. She paused transiently just above him,
and her legs were graceful pillars supporting the splendid temple of
her body and her head was the rising sun, then she stepped back into
the screen, the lights went on, and the curtain closed.

I am a wall, and my breasts like the towers thereof:

Then was I in his eyes as one that found peace.

It was some time before either man spoke. Then Drake said, "I'd like
to buy it."
"The realitape? Why—so you can destroy it?"
"No. How much do you want?"
"You must understand," said the King, "that it is very precious to me,
that—"
"I know," Drake said. "How much?"
"Six hundred Rockefellows."
The amount came perilously close to the figure to which Drake's
capital had dwindled. Nevertheless, he did not haggle, but counted
the hundred-credit notes out. The King removed the realitape from
the proscenium projector, and the exchange was made. "You are
getting a bargain, Mr. Drake," the King said. "For a collector's item
like that, I could get twice six hundred Rockefellows."
"When did she leave here?" Drake asked.
"About a year after she arrived. A big year. I went to her room after
one of her dances and found her gone. Her clothes, everything.... For
all her willingness to exhibit herself, she was never really one of us.
She would never permit any of us to get close to her in any sense of
the word. There was something tragic about her. She said once that
she could not bear children, but I do not think that this had very much
to do with her unhappiness. She was unhappy, you know, although
she was very careful never to let on." The King raised his eyes, and
Drake was dumfounded to see tears in them. "You have told me that
after she left Worldwellost she became a saint. Somehow this does
not surprise me. There is an exceedingly thin line between good and
evil. Most of us manage to walk this line with a greater or lesser
degree of equilibrium, but I think Mary Legs could not walk it at all:
with her, I think it had to be one side or the other. Evil, she found
intolerable after a while, and she ran away, crossing the line to good.
But good, she eventually found intolerable too, and she ran away
again. She told you that she wished to be put down on Iago Iago to
witness a resurrection. This, I do not believe. Real or not, the
resurrection was an excuse for her. I believe that she was searching
for a way of life that would combine the two extremes of good and evil
and that she hoped to find it among the primitive Polysirians. And I
think that she also hoped to find a man who would understand her
and accept her for what she was. Do you think I may be right,
Nathaniel Drake?"
"I don't know," Drake said. Abruptly he stood up. "I'll be on my way
now."
King Tutankhamen touched his arm. "The question which I am about
to ask is an exceedingly delicate one, Nathaniel Drake. I hope you
will not take offense?"
Drake sighed wearily. "Ask it then, and get it over with."
"By any chance, are you of Dutch descent?"
"No," Drake said, and left.

Three of the six months which Pastelsilks, Inc. had given Drake to
sell his cargo had now passed, and his cargo was undiminished by so
much as a single bolt of blue. His capital, on the other hand, was
virtually exhausted. Even Der Fliegende Holländer had never had it
so bad.
Drake had not expected to be able to sell any of the pastelsilk on
Worldwellost, nor, he realized in retrospect, had he expected to be
able to sell any of it on Azure. It was imperative, however, that he sell
it somewhere and sell it soon, for, unredeemed or not, he still
intended to go on living, and in order to go on living he needed a
means by which to make his daily bread, and while a ghost-ship left
much to be desired, it was better than no ship at all. He had known all
along that there was one place in the Sirian Satrapy where the people
were naive enough to barter worthwhile goods for "bolts of blue and
pastel nothingness", and that place was Iago Iago. However, he had
deferred going there for two reasons. The first reason had been his
eagerness to discredit Saint Annabelle Leigh, and the second had
been his fear that fencing the goods he procured on Iago Iago might
get him into trouble with the authorities and lead to the loss of his
pilot's license. But for all his seeming success in blackening the face
of the woman he wanted to hate, he had failed so completely to
evoke the desired emotion that he knew by now that the cause was
hopeless; and in view of the fact that his pilot's license would be
worthless if he lost his ship, the second objection was no longer valid.
It had been in the books all along for him to go to Iago Iago.
He lifted up from Heavenly and found the stars again, and the stars
were good. Madame Gin, he left behind. After turning over the ship to
the automatic pilot, he got out the realitape he had purchased from
King Tutankhamen and fitted it into the girlie realitape projector.
Presidently Mary Legs stepped out of the past. He propped the
stereo-snapshot Penelope had given him against the base of the
chart lamp, then he turned on the intercom. "I have chosen to speak
to you this day of the Potomac Peregrination, of the walking of His
ghost upon the land," said Saint Annabelle Leigh. Mary Legs cast her
final garment into the mists of time and walked lewdly down the ramp.
Perfume reminiscent of the vineyards of Azure permeated the room.
Cancelling out the background music, Drake discovered that her
dance blended with the words Saint Annabelle Leigh was uttering.
No, not Saint Annabelle's words exactly, but the rhythm and the
resonance of her voice. What the one was trying to express, the other
was trying to express also. Look at me, they "said" in unison. I am
lonely and afraid, and full of love. Yes, yes! cried the girl on the hill.
Full of love, full of love, full of love!... And in the cabin, vineyards
blossomed, flowers bloomed; there rose a blue-bright sun, and in its
radiance the boy and the girl walked, the boy Nathaniel and the girl
Annabelle Leigh, and the wind blew and the grass sang and the trees
put their heads together in rustling consultations ... and all the while,
the hull-beams creaked and the grav generator murmured, and the
spectral Fly by Night sped on its way to Iago Iago.
It was fitting that a ghost should fall in love with a ghost.

Iago Iago
Iago Iago is like a massive ball of yarn left lying in the hall of the
universe by some capricious cosmic cat. It is emerald in hue, and
when it is viewed from a great distance its atmosphere lends it a soft
and fuzzy effect. This effect diminishes as the distance decreases,
finally ceases to be a factor, and the planet emerges as a bright
green Christmas-tree ornament hanging upon the star-bedight spruce
of space.
The Polysirians were expecting Nathaniel Drake. They had been
expecting him for many months. "I will arise and come back to you,"
he had said. "I will appear in your sky, and come down to you, and
you will know then that His ghost did truly walk, and that it did not
walk in vain." Nathaniel Drake did not know that they were expecting
him, however, nor did he know that he had said these words.
He brought the Fly by Night down in a grassy meadow, parked it on
extended anti-grav jacks, and drifted down to the ground. He heard
the shouts then, and saw the Polysirians running toward him out of a
nearby forest. He would have re-boarded his ship and closed the lock
behind him, but the tenor of their shouts told him that he had nothing
to fear, and he remained standing in the meadow, tall and gaunt and
ghostly, waiting for them to come up.
They halted a dozen yards away and formed a colorful semicircle.
They wore flowers in their hair, and their sarongs and lap-laps were
made of pastelsilk. The pastelsilk was decades-old. Had another
trader come down out of the heavens in times past and defiled this
virgin ground?
Presently the semicircle parted, and an old woman stepped into the
foregound. Drake saw instantly that she was not a Polysirian. Her
Church of the Emancipation uniform stood out in jarring contrast to
the colorful attire of the natives, but it was not one of the mass-
produced uniforms worn by her compeers in the civilized sections of
the satrapy. It had been spun and cut and sewn by hand, and in its
very simplicity had attained a dignity that its civilized cousins could
never know. Somehow he got the impression that she was wearing it
for the first time.
She began walking toward him through the meadow grass. There
was something tantalizingly familiar about the way she moved;
something nostalgic. The brim of her kepi kept her eyes in shadow,
and he could not see into them. Her cheeks were sere and thin, yet
strangely lovely. She stopped before him and looked up into his face
with eyes into which he still could not see. "The people of Iago Iago
welcome you back, Nathaniel Drake," she said.
The heavens seemed to shimmer; the terrain took on an unreal cast.
The semicircle knelt and bowed its be-flowered heads. "I don't
understand," he said.
"Come with me."

He walked beside her over the meadow, the ranks of the people
parting, and the people falling in behind; over the meadow and
through the park-like forest and down the street of an idyllic village
and up a gentle hill that swelled like a virgin's breast into the sky. The
people began to sing, and the tune was a thrilling one, and the words
were fine and noble.
On top of the hill lay a lonely grave. The old woman halted before it,
and Drake halted beside her. Out of the corner of his eye he saw a
tear flash down her withered cheek. At the head of the grave there
was a large stone marker. The marker was intended for two graves,
and had been placed in such a way that when the second grave was
dug the stone face would be centered behind both.
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;" the
Polysirians sang. "He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of
wrath are stored; HE hath loosed the fearful lightning of his terrible
swift sword, His truth is marching on."
Nathaniel Drake looked at the marker's stone face. One half of it was
blank. On the other half—the half that overlooked the grave—the
following letters had been inscribed:
SAINT NATHANIEL DRAKE
Drake knew the answer then, and knew what he must do—
What, in a sense, he had done already....
He turned to the old woman standing beside him. "When did I first
come here?" he asked.
"Fifty-two years ago."
"And how old was I when I died?"
"You were eighty-three."
"Why did I become a saint?"
"You never told me, Nathaniel Drake."
Gently, he touched her cheek. She raised her eyes then, and this
time he saw into them—saw the years and the love and the laughter,
the sorrow and the pain. "Were we happy together?" he asked.
"Yes, my darling—thanks to you."
He bent and kissed her upon the forehead. "Good by, Mary Legs," he
said, and turned and walked down the hill.
"Glory, glory hallelujah," the Polysirians sang, as his ship rose up into
the sky. "Glory, glory, hallelujah. Glory, glory, hallelujah, his truth is
marching on."

To what may a warp seepage be likened?

It may be likened to a leak in the roof of a twentieth-century dwelling.
The roofs of twentieth-century dwellings were supported by rafters,
and whenever a leak occurred, the water ran along these rafters and
seeped through the ceiling in unexpected places. While the "rafters"
of man-made spacewarps are of a far more complex nature than the
rafters of such simple dwellings, the basic analogy still holds true: the
spatio-temporal elements that escape from spacewarps such as the
Suez Canal never emerge in the immediate vicinity of the rift.
Even in Nathaniel Drake's day, the Suez Canal techs knew this, but
what they did not know was that such seepages do not pose a threat
to the continuum, but only to whoever or whatever comes into contact
with their foci. Neither did the Suez Canal techs—or anyone else, for
that matter—know that the effect of these foci varies in ratio to the
directness of the contact, and that in the case of partial contact, the
effect upon a human being or an object is seemingly similar to the
hypothetical preliminary effect of a Lambda-Xi bombardment. Hence
it is not surprising that no one, including Drake himself, had tumbled
to the true cause of his "ghosthood": i.e., that he and the major part of
his ship, in coming into partial contact with a focus, had been partially
transmitted into the past. Simultaneously, the rest of the ship—and
Annabelle Leigh—had come into direct contact with the focus and
had been totally transmitted into the past.
Here then was the situation when Drake left Iago Iago:
Part of himself and part of his ship and all of Saint Annabelle Leigh
were suspended in a past moment whose temporal location he knew
to be somewhere in the year 3614 but whose location, although he
knew it to be within displacement-drive range of Iago Iago, he could
only guess at, while the preponderance of himself and the
preponderance of his ship hurtled toward the region of space that
was responsible for his "ghosthood" and whose co-ordinates he had
jotted down in the Fly by Night's log over three months ago. In the
light of the knowledge with which his visit to Iago Iago had endowed
him, he quite naturally assumed that once he and the ship made
direct contact with the force that had partially transmitted them, the
rest of the transmission would automatically take place—as in a
sense it already had. But what Drake did not know, and had no way
of knowing, was that spatio-temporal inconsistencies must be
balanced before they can be eliminated, and that before total
transmission could be effected, his three months-plus sojourn in the
future had to be compensated for by a corresponding sojourn in the
past, the length of said sojourn to be in inverse ratio to the spatio-
temporal distance he would be catapulted. Consequently he was
shocked when, following the Fly by Night's coincidence with the
focus, he emerged, not in the spatio-temporal moment he was
prepared for, but in the war-torn skies of a planet of another era and
another system.
At the instant of emergence, every warning light on the ship began
blinking an angry red, and the scintillometric siren began wailing like
an enfant terrible. Drake's conditioned reflexes superseded his shock
to the extent that he had the anti-fission field activated before the
automatic pilot had finished processing the incoming sensoria.
Although he did not know it at the time, the shield that the ship threw
out cleansed nearly an entire hemisphere of radioactivity and
engulfed half an ocean and a whole continent. All of which brings up
another aspect of time that was undreamed of in Drake's day:
Expansion.

Neanderthal man stood knee-high to a twentieth-century

grasshopper, and the woolly mammoth that he hunted was no longer
than a twentieth-century cicada. The universe expands on a temporal
as well as a spatial basis, and this expansion is cumulative. Over a
period of half a century, the results are negligible, but when millennia
are involved, the results are staggering. Look not to fossils to dispute
this seeming paradox, for fossils are an integral part of the planets
they are interred upon; and do not point with polemic fingers to such
seemingly insuperable obstacles as mass, gravity, and bone tissue,
for the cosmos is run on a co-operative basis, and all things both
great and small co-operate. Nor are there any discrepancies in the
normal order of events. A six-foot man of a past generation is the
equivalent of a six-foot man of a future generation: it is only when you
lift them from their respective eras and place them side by side that
the difference in relative size becomes manifest. Thus, in the eyes of
the inhabitants of the planet he was about to descend upon,
Nathaniel Drake would be a figure of heroic proportions, while his
ship would loom in the heavens like a small moon—
Or a small planet....
Beneath him lay the ruins of a once-magnificent structure. Not far
away from the ruins, a pale river ran, and across the river, a city
burned brightly in the night. Nathaniel Drake knew where he was then
—and when. Looking down upon the ruins, he had an inkling of his
destiny.
What I do now, he thought, has already been done, and I cannot
change it one iota. Therefore, what I do I am destined to do, and I am
here to fulfill my destiny.
He still wore his anti-grav belt. He parked the Fly by Night on
extended jacks, and drifted down to the ground.
Here, cherry trees grew, and the cherry trees were in blossom.
Towering above the pink explosions, Nathaniel Drake knew his heroic
proportions.
He approached the ruins he had seen from above. The noble
columns lay broken; the stately roof had fallen in. The walls,
blasphemed not long ago by the hate-steeped scrawls of
segregationists, were rivened. Was that a marble hand protruding
over there?
A hand. A marble arm. A shattered white-marble leg. Drake knew his
destiny then, and began to dig.
No one saw him, for men had become moles, and cowered in dark
places. Above him in the sky, missiles struck the anti-fission shield
and winked out like gutted glowworms. Interceptors blazed up, then
blazed back down again, and died. The flames of the burning capital
painted the Potomac blood-red.
He continued to dig.
A fallen column lay across the broken marble body. He rolled the
column aside. The noble head lay broken on the floor. He picked it up
with gentle hands and carried it out and laid it on the spring-damp
ground. Piece by piece, he carried the broken statue out, and when
he was sure that not a single fragment remained among the ruins, he
brought his ship down and loaded the pieces into the hold. Lifting, he
set forth for the sea.

Some distance inland from the shores of Chesapeake Bay, he left the
ship and drifted down to the bank of the river and began walking
along the river to the sea. Above him, the automatic pilot held the
ship on the course.
He felt like a giant, Nathaniel Drake did, walking down the Potomac to
the sea, and in this long-ago age a giant he was. But all the while he
walked, he knew that compared to the giant he was impersonating,
he was a pygmy two feet tall.
... and if you cannot believe in the walking of His ghost upon the land
and in His ascension to the stars, then you are as one dead, without
hope, without love, without pity, without kindness, without humanity,
without humility, without sorrow, without pain, without happiness, and
without life ...
"Amen," said Nathaniel Drake.
He came to a village untouched by the destruction around it, and saw
people crawling out of underground shelters. Looking down upon
them, he proclaimed "Lo, I have arisen. Lo, I walk again! Look at Me,
ye peoples of the earth—I have come to emancipate you from your
shackling fears, and I have summoned the Planet of Peace from out
of the immensities of space and time to transport My ghost to the
stars. Lo, I force peace upon you, ye peoples of the earth, and I
command you to remember always this terrible day when you drove
Kindness from your doorsteps and threw wide your portals to
Perdition."
On the shore of Chesapeake Bay he halted, and when the automatic
pilot brought the ship down, he removed the fragments of the statue
from the hold and laid them gently on the beach.... And the Planet of
Peace absorbed His ghost and bore it from the face of the earth.
A moment later, complete transmission occurred.

The cabin was a lonely place. He left it quickly and hurried down the
companionway to the starboard storeroom. The bulkheads no longer
shimmered, and the deck was solid beneath his feet. His
translucence was no more. He opened the storeroom lock and
stepped across the threshold. Mary Legs, nee Annabelle Leigh, was
huddled on the floor. She looked up when she heard his step, and in
her eyes was the dumb and hopeless misery of an animal that is
cornered and does not know what to do.
He raised her gently to her feet. "Next stop, Iago Iago," he said.
THE END
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK REDEMPTION
***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: