I need an explanation for this Business Law question to help me study.
Torts are private causes of action for being harmed by others. However, one cannot maintain a civil action for all wrongs. For example, someone may have breached a duty of owed to you but if there are no literal damages the case is dismissed. Do you think that people should be held financially accountable regardless of whether actual, literal damages were incurred. In other words, should someone be held financially responsible for breaching a duty of care even though there are no resulting harms? Why or why not. Please be sure to comment upon at least two other students’ posts in addition to posting your own thoughts.