scholarly journals Liberalism and Tort Law: On the Content and Economic Efficiency of a Liberal Common Law of Torts

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Markovits
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law

The Impossibility of General Strict Liability

1988 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Perry
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Standard

Both the history of tort law and the recent theoretical literature on the subject suggest that there are two intellectually tenable and more or less equally respectable answers to the question of what should be the general standard of liablity in tort, namely fault and strict liability. Each is generally thought to have represented, at one time or another, the dominant approach of the positive common law. Each has its modern theoretical proponents: a fault-based approach has been argued for on grounds of economic efficiency by Richard Posner, for example, and on grounds of individual moral right by, among others, Ronald Dworkin and Ernest Weinrib; strict liability, on the other hand, has received an economic defence in the work of Guido Calabresi, and a rights-based defence in the writings of Richard Epstein. Each of these theorists has felt compelled not only to offer positive arguments in favour of fault or strict liability but also to answer the intellectual case, whether perceived as being founded on a conception of efficiency or of individual rights, for the rival approach.

scholarly journals CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Codal Provisions ◽  
Code Civil

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-145
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

Economic efficiency and the common law

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Common

Personalized Legal Areas

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-84
Author(s):  
Omri Ben-Shahar ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter illustrates personalized law “in action” by examining it in three areas of the law: standards of care under the common law tort doctrine of negligence, mandated consumer protections in contract law, and criminal sanctions. In each area, the chapter examines personalization of commands along several dimensions. In tort law, standards of care could vary according to each injurer’s riskiness and skill, to reduce the costs of accidents. In contract law, mandatory protections could vary according to the value they provide each consumer and differential cost they impose on firms, to allocate protections where, and only where, they are justified. And in criminal law, sanctions would be set based on what it takes to deter criminals, accounting for how perpetrators differ in their motives and likelihood of being apprehended, with the potential to reduce unnecessary harsh penalties.

Confidentiality and Release of Medical Information

2018 ◽  
pp. 25-37
Author(s):  
Rebekah Ley ◽  
Natalie Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Medical Information ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Regulatory Body ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
Professional Guidance

The duty of confidentiality that a doctor owes to a patient is probably as old as the practice of medicine and is essential for trust between doctors and their patients. However, it is not an absolute duty and there are instances when a doctor is entitled, and in certain circumstances obliged, to disclose confidential information without patient consent to do so. This chapter is concerned with doctor–patient confidentiality and when medical information can reasonably be released. Confidentiality is covered by a mixture of UK statute, common law, tort law, and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also a core component of the professional guidance given to doctors by the profession’s regulatory body, the General Medical Council, to which all doctors registered with it are expected to adhere.

9. Employers’ liability and non-delegable duties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Common

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. While tort law is largely based on case law developed by judges through the common law, the liability of occupiers for the injuries suffered by those on their premises is governed by two statutes: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The chapter explains the scope of an occupier’s liability and how it relates to other aspects of negligence, considers the duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, discusses the duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and how it relates to the previous common law duty of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document