Seduction (tort)
Part of the common law series |
Tort law |
---|
(Outline) |
Trespass to the person |
Property torts |
Dignitary torts |
Negligent torts |
Principles of negligence |
Strict and absolute liability |
Nuisance |
Economic torts |
|
Defences |
Liability |
Remedies |
Other topics in tort law |
|
By jurisdiction |
Other common law areas |
|
The tort of seduction was a civil wrong or tort in common law legal systems, and still exists in some jurisdictions.
Originally, it allowed an unmarried woman's father - or other person employing her services - to sue for the loss of these services, when she became pregnant and could no longer perform them.[1] Over time, the tort was altered, so that instead, it would be used by an unmarried woman to sue on the grounds of seduction to obtain damages from her seducer, if her consent to sex was based upon his misrepresentation.[2]
Breach of promise was a similar, but not identical, tort that was used frequently in similar situations in the past, but has now been abolished in most jurisdictions.[3]
Legal basis
Initially, the tort of
In the 20th century, the action was criticised as maintaining "property interests in humans", and the tort was recast to recognize personal injury to the woman, rather than solely deprivation of a father's property right. Most
England
Historically, the seduced female could not bring a suit herself. Rather, it would usually be brought by her father, acting under the legal fiction that the parent-child relationship falls under the master-servant relationship. However, if the daughter was a contracted servant, a suit could not be brought by her father against her master.[4] English courts did not require the father to bring the suit: any person who had suffered a loss of the woman's services could bring a claim, and successful claimants included widowed mothers and aunts.[5] Generally, seductions had to result in pregnancy in order to be actionable, although exceptions did exist.[6] Although damages were nominally awarded for the financial loss to the claimant, by the 19th century they tended to reflect more the social embarrassment and stigma associated with pregnancy out of wedlock that was suffered by the claimant.[7]
The tort was abolished in England & Wales in 1971, under section 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970.[8]
Canada
Alberta
As described below, the Northwest Territories enacted seduction laws in 1903, when Alberta was still part of the Territories. When it became a separate province in 1905, it retained this law. The 1934
British Columbia
The action was abolished by the Family Law Reform Amendments Act 1985, c72.[12]
Manitoba
In 1892, Manitoba adopted anti-seduction laws, copying and citing in part the Ontario legislation.[13] It abolished these laws in 1982, under the Equality of Status Act, alongside all other heartbalm actions.[14]
New Brunswick
New Brunswick repealed seduction laws in 1985, since they were incompatible with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which precludes discrimination.[15]
North West Territories
In 1903, the Northwest Territories adopted anti-seduction laws. At this time, Alberta and Saskatchewan were both part of the North West Territories, and retained this law even after becoming separate provinces in 1905.[13] Similar to Prince Edward Island's 1852 statute, this notably allowed for a seduced woman to sue for herself with this tort, for personal hurt and injury (as opposed to much of the previous law, targeted at compensating a father).[16] The law was abolished in 1985, due to incompatibility with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which precludes discrimination.[15]
Ontario
An Act to make the remedy for cases of seduction more effectual, and to tender the fathers of illegitimate children liable for their support, was passed in
The Seduction Act was repealed in 1978 by the Family Law Reform Act.[17][4]
Saskatchewan
As described above, the Northwest Territories enacted seduction laws in 1903, when Saskatchewan was still part of the Territories. When it became a separate province in 1905, it retained this law.[13] The province repealed its seduction law in 1990: becoming the last province to do so.[10][18]
Prince Edward Island
An 1852 statute in Prince Edward Island notably allowed for a seduced woman to sue for herself with this tort, for personal hurt and injury (as opposed to much of the previous law, targeted at compensating a father), although damages were capped at 100 pounds.[4][16] However, two years later, in McInnis v McCallum, the court held that a woman could only sue for damages herself if she could show that at the time of the seduction, she also had had a parent, master or guardian entitled to sue under the common law action, for loss of her services.[16]
United States
In the United States, the tort of seduction has been abolished in most states.
Notes
- ^ a b c "FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw". Retrieved 29 July 2023.
- ^ ISBN 0-674-80279-9.
The tort of seduction allows an unmarried woman (formerly her father or other guardian), usually but not always a virgin, to obtain damages from her seducer, provided that he made misrepresentations to obtain her consent to sex.
- ^ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 40.
- ^ a b c d Bailey, Martha (1991). "Girls and Masters: The Tort of Seduction and the Support of Bastards". Canadian Journal of Family Law. 10: 137–162. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
- ^ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 36.
- ^ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 37.
- ^ Sinclair, M B (March 1987). "Seduction and the Myth of the Ideal Woman". Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 5 (1): 39.
- ^ "Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970". Retrieved 29 July 2023.
- ^ Back, Constance (1986). "The Tort of Seduction: Fathers and Daughters in Nineteenth Century Canada". The Dalhousie Law Journal. 10 (45): 63.
- ^ a b "Seduction and the Law - Canada's History". Retrieved 29 July 2023.
- ISBN 9780802037503.
- ISBN 9780802037503.
- ^ a b c Back, Constance (1986). "The Tort of Seduction: Fathers and Daughters in Nineteenth Century Canada". The Dalhousie Law Journal. 10 (45): 54.
- ^ The Equality of Status Act, CCSM c E130 canlii.org
- ^ a b Kutner, Peter (1987). "Law Reform in Tort: Abolition of Liability for "Intentional" interference with family relationships". Western Australian Law Review. 17 (1): 67.
- ^ a b c Back, Constance (1986). "The Tort of Seduction: Fathers and Daughters in Nineteenth Century Canada". The Dalhousie Law Journal. 10 (45): 55.
- ISBN 9780691149820.
- ISBN 9781442657625.
See also
- Alienation of affections
- Kranzgeld in Germany