Recall the contrast I drew in the first class.

Suppose that Jones strikes Smith without Smith's consent. Jones commits both the crime of assault and the tort of battery.

The conceptual distinction between crime and tort is reflected in two institutional distinctions.

In procedure:

R. v. Jones: The Crown prosecutes Jones.

Smith v. Jones: Smith brings suit against Jones.

In the outcome:

If the Crown is successful, Jones is convicted and will be punished.

If Smith is successful, Jones is held liable, and Smith will be compensated.

1. The parties in tort (and civil/private law generally) are the "plaintiff" and the "defendant." You might think of the Crown as the plaintiff in criminal law.

2. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The standard of proof is lower: the plaintiff must make her case on "the balance of probabilities."

Actually, there are two possibilites.

1. Injunctions etc.: Orders by a court to do or not do something.

2. Damages: Money to make up for losses. Two kinds:

(i) Compensatory. The measure is the loss to the plaintiff, who is entitled to "restitutio in integrum."

(ii) Punitive. The measure is the wrongness of the defendant's action.