Does a general right to take preventive action against feared harm exist in our tort law?

Abstract

‘’For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’’. [I. Newton] This fundamental law of physics, can be partially resembled within notions of human law. For every misconduct/fault/action/omission/negligence or otherwise, any respective aggrieved person has legislative remedies as a way to strike an opposite reaction. Retaliations or reactions of an aggrieved person are largely driven by fear and by the humane instinct of protecting one’s self, from harm or from further detriment from occurring to his/her person. Notwithstanding this, fear may also strike a person when such person detects/apprehends that he might be suffering future harm. Traditionally apprehension of future harm was frowned upon, since for certainty’s sake calculations of harm and damage occurred needed to be seen and proven. This is evident when one considers the general pediments of local tort law and namely the principles that, every person shall be liable for the damage which occurs through his fault; and that a person shall be deemed to be in fault if, in his own acts, he does not use the prudence, diligence and attention of a bonus pater familias. It is noticeable that the concept of damage purported in the former provision is allying itself to factual/actual damage. The latter provision also allies to concepts of acts which are actually purported or inflicted. Nevertheless, very prospect of apprehending damage, must necessarily entitle one to take up any rights of preventive action, which as a result may prevent further harm from being inflicted to the person apprehending the damage.