LAW Lascivious Wassailes on the
Tort of seduction REFORM
mmediately prior to the editorial deadline, I was perusing the most recent edition of the LIJ with the most honourable intentions of writing an article i Iconcerning the consumption of alcohol as a young lawyer (being fully qualified for the task) when I found to my horror that a Ms Tesoriero had beaten me to the punch. The silver lining to this thievery of thunder is that my exercise in the art of procrastination has once again paid off and consequentially I now bring to your attention that seduction is an actionable tort.
"This tort is only actionable for the seduction of a female."
Now, before we all get carried away with litigious inclinations against perpetrators of heartbreak, it's worth mentioning that this tort is only actionable for the seduction of a female.1 And if this isn't enough to get your EO hackles raised, the tort is only actionable by the female's father, or one standing in the father's place. Halsbury's Laws of Australia outlines the tort as follows: century. The performance of trivial domestic duties such as the "occasional making of tea" (Carr v Clarke)3 or At common law, a man, other than her husband, "milking of cows" (Bennett v AllcottY was found to be who has sexual intercourse with a woman will be sufficient evidence of service. We lucky Victorians don't liable to her father, or one standing in the father's even have to prove the loss of such services since they place for any consequential loss of her ability to are statutorily presumed (section 14 of the Wrongs Act), provide household services to the father (at [415 as is the relationship of master and servant between a 1970]). parent and the woman/girl seduced.
Archaic? Yes, well, not completely surprising when you consider that the action arose by analogy to two other "The performance of trivial actions developed in medieval England - actio per quod servitium amisit (action for loss of services), which domestic duties such as the recognises a master's proprietary or quasi-proprietary 'occasional making of tea' (Carr v interest in his servants, and the action of consortium, which recognises a husband's quasi-proprietary interest Clarke) or 'milking of cows' in his wife and her services.2 (Bennett v Allcott) was found to be There may be an argument that this tort has fallen into desuetude given the lack of post-WWII reported sufficient evidence of service." judgments. However, although passe, the tort has not been formally abolished in Victoria - unlike in the more Considering the master-servant relationship is progressive common law jurisdictions of South Australia, presumed in favour of the plaintiff, proof of service is New Zealand and even England. Surely this cannot be a easily satisfied. As "loss of service" is also presumed by mere case of oversight, particularly since, when the statute, the plaintiff only really needs to prove the act of Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) was amended in 2000, the tort carnal intercourse and causation. Sexual intercourse is a copped a mention in the Bill's second reading in the necessary requirement because, as Street points out in Legislative Council. It's a little surprising that we find the The Law of Torts:5 "No action lies against a defendant need to maintain a cause of action whereby a plaintiff who has merely alienated the affections of the female." can bring a suit against a man for the seduction of the Pregnancy and childbirth are the usual cause for the plaintiff's daughter based on a master-servant loss of services, but are not essential. Any illness that is relationship. "directly traceable to the physical act of copulation"6 A quick run down of the elements of the tort further which gives rise to some disability for service will suffice, questions its utility in today's society. I must confess that as demonstrated in Manvell v Tomson,1 where the the phrase "her ability to provide household services to plaintiff collected for the loss of service resulting from the father" generated some perceptions of iniquity, the daughter's mental agitation following her seduction however a glance through some late 1960s torts books and subsequent desertion. Where pregnancy is the cause reveals that this element of the tort had been reduced for the loss of service, the defendant may defeat the to a mere legal fiction since the early nineteenth action by denying paternity and may even call evidence
Issue 33 2006 YOUNG LAWYERS JOURNAL 9 LAW REFORM these the that female's suitor wrong substantial expenses damages. daughter's of Obviously, conduct Conversely, business without sustained compensation completely consideration seems honour increased honour medical section consideration damages. 10 disgrace. reputation loss primarily
This The Despite the
paternity
of although
out (i.e.
tort central female's is
services YOUNG either
5
( is and expenses,
Beetham redress. particularly end levity
of that Further, incurred
where of by not Naturally,
advances the In
the
is knack or compensation
out damages
the
conversation Brankstone
pocket the roundly
of
LAWYERS of
by
to for significant prospect fact (at the
the
based blow of
but
misconduct of the
Seduction the
the his the Canada
daughter,
for character, 54). the
the
v action the etc).
in damages that
in
made
James).*
tort
high expenses the to child
evident
determination defendant
respect on chastity may criticised JOURNAL
female's substance action
question
the should the
But
plaintiff seems monetary
v
remedied
if is position or under
to
for be
Cooper'
Act
father's his whether in with seduced damages
bad are unchastity
Such
someone
of itself in
mitigated or insult form and
daughter Issue for pain not
(Alberta)
to
the
the when the not has
is lack reputation, a
may
damages focus
or 0 the
leaves based view its
33 loss, be
this
assessment
and pride Dwyer loss
and to guise of exacerbated
female's limited
in
thereof. as
are
obvious 2006
taken recover
calculating
plaintiff else.
( his damages,
person,
by any Verry an to on by of
law
suffering
1922, is
on the not
and of
pride
J introducing service attributing a honourable proving the
may In
to damage the emphasised based
matrimony). into tart. improper
daughter
character limited v
Shopping sense anomalies,
reasonable fact,
which mere Watkins). of may
new and
family's
be
the
any
is (i.e.
on
the
the
of seek
to for
the
1 29 34 56 78
10
Thankerton this voluntary whatever entitled doubt Commenting abolish a action been 4. 2. no remedy 3. Perhaps 9. 8. 7. 6. 1. 5. 11. 10.
LW certain Thanks Although
that cause disease commenting action 392) Street's seduced (1787) (1818) (Balkin notes Butterworths, Note Note (1836) (1862) Brownlee [1937] daughter.
(1941) leads
car? thought
cogent is
of outlines
a 6
1 it.
the
for of
the we'll
2 2 in 7 2
still
1
above. above, 43
enticement, enthusiasm
& (thereby
The for
me angle
loss TR Chit. C&P C&P by KB
action
seduction
Davis,
lack v what WALR
a remarked seduced
a
available MacMillan 166.
527 Law tuning
on to
Perhaps
catch
relic in reasons the of to 308. 303. woman,
260. 704. of 393.
it in a question
Law this at
chastity".
be putting of
may 51. gender differences footnote:
was
seduction."
of 533.
the Torts up noting
a
of in.
legislative female
to
the
the
someone wrong
for be that in [1940] considered, seduced with Torts,
bring his equality (4th
many parent said
chauvinistic
"Why?" great that
11 "If
parents
"Seduction
between
the 2nd AC edn,
to
helps from Alliance The Website: Telephone:
Institute Email: Fax: to a
to the
presumably child
male
states
802. bring
does endeavour will
in caution
Law edn, the rest members'
1968, be fund
to this action,
What's
agreement though receives
must Institute
Australasian
child
the find
no not woman further expense) of 1996,
the Services tort of London, law
Vehicle
Buying
may tort the more www.avbs.com.au [email protected] 1300 use 1300
seem
be
in contracts
Australia.
a a
for has
member
action by
Sydney, but,
financial
more, with of of
female. use giving there
of Lord
world
negotiated
this well a poignantly from 76 to through 76
yore, than AVBS.
seduction cause B u t t e r w o r t h s ,
alas,
for
service services. have 49 49
benefit
herself. it venereal
have are
The LMCT Street her
and 47 49
it.
excites the a And of an
I a which
being
have
no 9828
a
and