-1

E.g can a judge be tried for mistrial because of ordinary negligence?

They are not employees or workers so that they could be reasonably absolved for ordinary negligence.

We expect employees to be obedient so they have no moral responsibility, if we held them liable we would harm the market people would be reluctutant to enter a contract of employeement.

In all these of judges etc cases they receive more than enough indenization for assuming responsibility.

By freeing them from ordinary negligence we are making them negligent.

Other than political economics why would the legislator free them from such responsibility?

closed as too broad by David Siegel, Pat W., user6726, Nij, StephanS Apr 11 at 15:33

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Thought about moving to close this as too broad but answered instead. In general, however, try to focus your questions more narrowly. There are at least six different kinds of professions asked about in this question and the question does not specify liability for what kind of act as a result of ordinary negligence. – ohwilleke Apr 9 at 17:57
  • 3
    I have vote to close as too broad. The well-written answer by @ohwilleke only makes clear the wide variety of legal and political issues included in this question. In addition, it includes incorrect assumptions, such as "We expect employees to be obedient so they have no moral responsibility" there are cases where an employee has a moral and legal duty to disobey the instructions of an employer -- for example, when ordered to violate a law. – David Siegel Apr 10 at 13:42
  • @DavidSiegel I am restricting the responsibility to instructions strictly related to their job. What the employer is expected to instruct their employee. They are employees only when putting their job through. In the rest of their lifes they are themselves. And I am also restricting the liability to ordinary negligence not even gross negligence. When they are ordered to violate a law(they actually foresee the consequences and deem them necessary to please their boss) it is oblique intent. – George Ntoulos Apr 10 at 23:25
  • @George Ntoulos I am not sure what you mean by "oblique intent" I have not encountered that term in legal writing. In any case the question as currently written does not include the restrictions mentioned in your comment. In any case the current rules vary by profession, and by circumstance, and employees may be held liable for various kinds of actions, even when following instructions in some cases. – David Siegel Apr 11 at 2:06
1

In all these of judges etc cases they receive more than enough indenization for assuming responsibility.

By freeing them from ordinary negligence we are making them negligent.

Other than political economics why would the legislator free them from such responsibility?

Judges are precisely the ones rendering this question within scope of Law SE --not Politics SE-- insofar as they repeatedly cite cases like Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 (1995) to allege that:

absolute immunity is needed to forestall endless collateral attacks on judgments through civil actions against the judges themselves.

Under that pretext, the judicial system has become quite retrograde compared to how it was 4,000 years ago. Indeed, judicial immunity is the opposite of how the Code of Hammurabi in its fifth law addressed the problem of judicial incompetence:

If a judge atry a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

(emphasis added)

I usually get a cascade of downvotes (and I am called "abusive", and so forth) here on Law SE for pointing to uncomfortable truths about the judiciary, but you are right in that society makes judges negligent --at best-- by allowing absolute judicial immunity to remain in our system.

The problem goes beyond merely ordinary negligence. Nowadays the judiciary defends that

absolute judicial immunity [...] applies regardless of the nature of the tort and even where the suit against the judge alleges that he acted in bad faith, maliciously or corruptly

Parker, supra at 284-285 (citations omitted), and many judges abuse that prerogative.

As an example of that judicial abuse, consider the matter of judge Lisa Gorcyca and her rage against the Tsimhoni siblings in year 2015. This and this are only two of many posts discussing the ultimate outcome of that aberration. Even though judge Gorcyca extorted, yelled at, and for 17 days jailed the Tsimhoni siblings, absolute judicial immunity would bar any civil action for all the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress to which these three innocent siblings were subjected by judge Gorcyca.

Judicial immunity supposedly encompasses judicial acts only, but the fact is that it significantly extends to non-judicial acts as well. Consider the matter of judge Gregg Iddings, who sexually harassed his secretary from 2012 to 2015.

Pretty much anyone would lose his job for sexually harassing (even if only once) a co-worker, but the Michigan Supreme Court decided that a six-month suspension was sufficient sanction for the judge's multi-year pattern of sexual harassment (note also how outrageous it was for the judge's wife to allegedly make her own statement "calling the suspension draconian", but that goes beyond the scope of your question). Not only was judge Iddings allowed to remain in judicial office after the suspension, but he was also allowed to seek re-election and received some disreputable endorsements to that effect. He ultimately lost his bench, not by judicial sense of rectitude, but thanks to the electorate.

  • 2
    as a discussion of what the law should be, this belongs more eon politics.se rather than law.se. A discussion of what the law of negligence is, as it applies to a particular circumstance or profession, for example when can a physician be held negligent, would belong here on law.se. If a properly narrow question was asked, that is. – David Siegel Apr 10 at 13:45
  • 2
    @DavidSiegel That is merely a pretext to keep downvoting answers, as I am not really discussing "what the law should be". The excerpts of Parker v. State and the MI Supreme Court opinion regarding judge Gregg Iddings (link provided in the 2nd-to-last paragraph) are examples of case law, that is, what the law is and/or how courts apply it. Citing the Code of Hammurabi serves as comparison between what the law is versus how it was. – Iñaki Viggers Apr 10 at 14:03
  • @IñakiViggers I am actually intently pursuing information on why the Law is the way it is. I can explain it perfectly with Political Economics(The Politicians necessarily make the laws as such to be elected; they intently pursue their very own utility even if they thence harm their people). The very same reasons as tariffs on international trade. – George Ntoulos Apr 10 at 23:42
  • @DavidSiegel even heard of lege ferenda? – George Ntoulos Aug 8 at 1:13
  • @GeorgeN Lex ferenda or future law (a rather academic term) refers to proposed laws not enacted, or philosophic arguments about what the law should be. In short, it is entirely off-topic here on LAW.SE – David Siegel Aug 8 at 13:48
5

In the U.S are judges, attorneys, physicians, teachers, professors, politicians, administrative officers liable for ordinary negligence?

In the U.S., judges, prosecuting attorneys and legislators have absolute immunity from civil liability (but not from criminal liability) for legislative and judicial acts in their official capacity.

Attorneys have absolute immunity from civil liability from some claims from some people (e.g. defamation claims from non-clients for statements made in connection with representing someone) and qualified immunity from civil liability from others (e.g. most claims of non-clients) for their acts as lawyers, but are liable to their clients for ordinary negligence.

Physicians are liable to their patients for ordinary negligence in the nature of medical malpractice. Some acts taken by physicians that would otherwise constitute false imprisonment or assault or homicide are excluded from the definition of those crimes.

Elected officials in the executive branch including mayors, law enforcement officers and the attorney general have qualified immunity from civil liability for their official non-judicial acts. This means that they are only liable for intentional violations of constitutional rights that are clearly established in the law. Subject to narrow exceptions (e.g. driving or medical malpractice) they are not liable for ordinary negligence.

It is hard to know what kind of liability is contemplated for teachers and professors or administrative officers to answer. The answer would not be the same for all kinds of claims. Teachers of minors generally have the same immunities as a parent with respect to the use of physical force towards their students in order to maintain order in the educational process. The liability of teachers and professors also depends upon whether they are employed by public or private institutions. Those in public institutions often have more protections from liability, but also have exposure to civil rights claims that those in private institutions are not. Contractual waivers can also influence liability in these circumstances.

Everyone has liability for ordinary negligence in their unofficial capacity and for many acts (e.g. driving a car) while on duty but not involving activities particular to their professional responsibilities.

They are not employees or workers so that they could be reasonably absolved for ordinary negligence.

We expect employees to be obedient so they have no moral responsibility, if we held them liable we would harm the market people would be reluctutant to enter a contract of employeement.

In the private sector, employees are usually liable for ordinary negligence that they personally commit, even though the employer is also liable.

Judges are employees and arguably workers as well. And, for their non-judicial acts, judges have the same liability as every other employee for their ordinary negligence. For example, if a judge gets in a car accident while driving from one courtroom to another, and harms another through negligence, the judge has personal liability for the judge's ordinary negligence and the judicial branch has vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee, the judge.

In all these of judges etc cases they receive more than enough indenization for assuming responsibility.

By freeing them from ordinary negligence we are making them negligent.

Other than political economics why would the legislator free them from such responsibility?

Analysis of why the law is the way it is, or what it should be, are really better suited for Politics.SE than for Law.SE. I discussion of the why's of judicial immunity is appropriate for Politics.SE. A discussion of "judges etc" is probably to broad for either forum.

  • By mistrial I mean judicial malpractice, otherwise(if they were not immune) culpable judicial misconduct. Analysis of the law is actually what the science of Law does. If law was assumed to be just as it should and lawyers just "did" they just handled cases they put them through Law would be just business. A case would be nothing more than a transaction. It would not be a science but rather a simple business. Justice is just too important for society for it to be just a business. Lawyers should know the basics of mathematics,statistics,philosophy,linguistics,sociology and economy. – George Ntoulos Apr 9 at 21:18
  • 3
    @GeorgeNtoulos Law is not a science (and never has been, German protestations to the contrary notwithstanding) even though it often is more than just business. There are more than enough barriers to entry into the profession as it is. – ohwilleke Apr 10 at 17:13
  • So is it just another profession and not an important authority or service? Especially Judges. They study law too don't they? You see studying and penalties for negligence as barriers? – George Ntoulos Apr 10 at 22:55
  • @GeorgeNtoulos In the U.S. about 99% of judges are experienced and successful and politically connected lawyers in a second career (while 1% are non-lawyers with no formal legal education except a few weeks of crash course in being a judge). Liability concerns are very different for judges and practicing attorneys. Lawyers are just another profession providing a valuable service just like other professions, more than a business, but the fewer there are, the less accessible the legal system is to the less affluent. It's harder to be a lawyer in the U.S. than in Europe (7 v 3-4 years of school). – ohwilleke Apr 10 at 23:03
  • Do you see studying and penalties for negligence as shameful barriers? – George Ntoulos Apr 10 at 23:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.