tort law
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

1768
(FIVE YEARS 524)

H-INDEX

23
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takayuki Oishi ◽  
Gerard van der Laan ◽  
René van den Brink

2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronen Perry

Abstract This article examines the possible uses of comparative tort law in practice and theory. It takes the view that comparative law is always a means, never an end in itself, explains how it can be utilized by judges, legislatures, and legal scholars, and puts forward important caveats and qualifications. Part 2 demonstrates the traditional role of comparative law in interpreting and implementing shared or similar tort doctrines and in providing ideas for domestic tort law gap-filling and reform. It highlights the challenges that such utilization might present. Part 3 maintains that comparative research is the cornerstone of unification endeavors. Starting with coordinated projects, Part 3 argues that unification is in itself an instrument (making comparative law a second-order instrument) and that it cannot be pursued without taking into account some concerns about its desirability and practicability. Part 3 then discusses uncoordinated unification processes, whereby lawmakers in one jurisdiction identify a “global consensus” and decide to join it, and elaborates on the normative and positive components of these strategies. Part 4 acknowledges that comparative analysis usually uncovers trans-jurisdictional diversity and argues that such findings can underlie normative and positive theories of tort law. A comparison can offer a systematic taxonomy of possible legal solutions to a particular problem, enabling scholars to critically evaluate and compare the alternatives from their preferred theoretical perspective. Moreover, any hypothesis about the impact of cultural, economic, political, technological, and other conditions and changes on the law can be substantiated or refuted through comparative analyses that seek out legal differences (or similarities) among systems with different (or similar) underlying backgrounds. Through this analysis, the article aims to reignite and enrich the debate and inspire tort-law makers and scholars to integrate comparative research into their work.


2022 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Li Feldman

Abstract In the United States, one startling response to COVID-19 has been a push for so-called “liability shields,” laws modifying tort doctrine so as to largely eliminate tort liability for negligently causing COVID-19. Though not enacted at the federal level, such changes have been adopted in numerous states. This article excavates and articulates the tort theory that lies behind this puzzlingly response to a pandemic. I call the theory “tort deflationism.” Grounded in modern American conservatism and with a doctrinal pedigree dating back to the 1970s, tort deflationism explains and justifies only minimal tort liability, out of deference to non-governmental actors – especially family, church, and business—and suspicion of government competence and power. Other tort theories should reckon with tort deflationism, and I discuss some challenges of doing so. The contest between tort deflationism and other theories speaks to ongoing debates about the legitimacy of law in pluralist democracies. I urge tort theorists to enter these debates and to consider their implications for tort law itself.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-19
Author(s):  
A. A. Markelova

Technical and information progress undoubtably have an influence on the trade market and the consumer service sector of the modern economy. The sphere of taxi companies is no exception. When a user downloads a taxi-aggregation company’s application and orders a taxi, using its information about a carrier, this causes uncertainty in the qualifcation of the legal relationship between aggregator, carrier, and consumer. This ambiguity becomes critical if non-performance of the contract causes injury or non-pecuniary loss to a passenger. In this case, a concurrence arises between contact and tort qualifcation of the claim against the carrier and/or aggregator. The essay examines approaches to the distribution of liability between the aggregator, the carrier, and other persons who could contribute to causing harm, from the point of view of contract and tort law.


2021 ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
O. I. Mykolenko ◽  
О. M. Mykolenko

The article reveals the main directions of improving the national legislation on administrative responsibility. It has been established that the current administrative-tort legislation of Ukraine does not meet the needs of today, either in content or in form. Its norms require a radical revision, and the systematization of legislation on administrative responsibility is the only way to improve the work of legal entities empowered to bring individuals to administrative responsibility. The following problems of a theoretical and practical nature that impede the improvement of administrative tort law: 1) lack of a clear understanding of the legal nature of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses; 2) tendencies towards refusal from the synthesis of material and procedural norms in the codified normative legal act on administrative responsibility; 3) duplication in the administrative-tort legislation of ideas, principles and provisions that ensure the effectiveness of criminal liability; 4) artificial limitation in the legislation of the circle of persons to whom administrative penalties can be applied; 5) imperfection of the procedure for bringing a person to administrative responsibility; 6) ineffective and unreasonably extended system of administrative penalties; 7) an imperfect and ineffective system of bodies authorized to bring persons to administrative responsibility. It was argued that administrative responsibility is, in fact, a prompt reaction of the state or other authorized bodies to violations of the law, and therefore “simplified proceedings” should be widely used in addition to “ordinary proceedings”. However, over the years of Ukraine’s independence, “simplified proceedings” have gradually disappeared from the law enforcement activities of administrative and judicial bodies. It is emphasized that the specificity of administrative responsibility lies in the fact that the subject, who has the right to initiate an administrative offense case, is often the subject considering the case on the merits. Therefore, knowledge of the material part of administrative tort law helps such a subject to determine the preliminary qualification of an offense, and knowledge of its procedural part – to consider the case and impose on a person one of the types of administrative penalties. It has been proved that “simplified proceedings” should be the key procedural form of bringing persons to administrative responsibility. It is noted that the codification of administrative tort law is a painstaking and systematic work in which well-known scientists who have been working on the problem of administrative responsibility for many years should participate.


F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1294
Author(s):  
Dennis W. K. Khong ◽  
Wan-Ju Yeh

Background: Modern artificial intelligence applications are appearing in healthcare and medical practices. Artificial intelligence is used both in medical research and on patients via medical devices. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare English and Taiwanese tort laws in relation to medical artificial intelligence. Methods: The methodologies employed are legal doctrinal analysis and comparative law analysis. Results: The investigation finds that English tort law treats wrong diagnostic or wrong advice as negligent misstatement, and mishaps due to devices as a physical tort under the negligence rule. Negligent misstatement may occur in diagnosis or advisory systems, while a negligent act may occur in products used in the treatment of the patient. Product liability under English common law applies the same rule as negligence. In Taiwan, the general principles of tort law in Taiwan’s Civil Code for misstatement and negligent action apply, whereas the Consumer Protection Act provides for additional rules on product liability of traders. Conclusions: Safety regulations may be a suitable alternative to tort liability as a means to ensure the safety of medical artificial intelligence systems.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Haim Abraham

Immunity from tort liability for losses that are inflicted during warfare is often justified by a supposedly intuitive concern: without immunity, states and combatants will be over-deterred from engaging in combat. In this article, I test this common perception using three frameworks. First, I theoretically analyze the impact of tort liability on relevant state actors’ incentives to engage in warfare. This analysis suggests that tort law is likely to under-deter state actors in relation to their decisions on whether and how to conduct hostilities. Second, I test this conclusion through an original mixed-methods exploratory research, using Israel as a test case. My findings reveal that while tort liability under-deters state actors from engaging in warfare, it can prompt them to implement regulatory measures to minimize the state’s liability. Third, I offer a legal history analysis, exploring why Israel established an immunity from tort liability for losses it inflicts during combat in 1951, and why and how this immunity has expanded since. I show that as the Israel-Palestine conflict prolonged and intensified, state actors began viewing Palestinians’ tort claims as a civilian means of warfare and immunity from liability as the weapon needed for defending Israel’s interests.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Sebok

Abstract Tort theory over the past two decades has been characterized by a fruitful dialectic between two models. Instrumentalism, especially, in its deterrence mode, has been promoted by a wide coalition of scholars and jurists. In response, various critics of instrumentalism have argued for the autonomy of tort law, first under the umbrella of corrective justice and later under civil recourse. The success of civil recourse depends in part on its ability to explain emerging areas of focus in tort law. One such area is public nuisance, which, despite some setbacks, is viewed by the plaintiffs bar, state actors, and some members of the academy as an effective tool to address significant social problems, such as the opioid crisis. This article asks whether, and how, civil recourse theory can accommodate modern public nuisance law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Abraham ◽  
George E. White

Abstract The future of tort theory cannot be sensibly imagined without understanding its past. Our aim is to understand where tort theory has been in order to predict where it may go. We contend that tort theory has experienced two different eras, and that it may well be about to enter a third. In the first era, spanning roughly the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, tort theory faced outward to the world, focusing on issues affecting redress for civil injuries that were being decided in the courts and emerging in American society at large. In the second era, roughly the last 30 to 40 years, tort theory turned inward and focused mostly on itself. The tort theory that has been done during this second era, valuable though it has been, may well have borne most of its scholarly fruit. We may therefore be ready to move into a third era, in which tort theory turns outward again and becomes occupied with the cutting-edge issues of tort law policy and principle that will be generated as the twenty-first century progresses. This Essay chronicles the first era, in which tort theory faced outward, the second era, in which tort theory turned inward, and identifies three issues that we believe may be on the tort theory agenda, when and if tort theory turns outward again. These involve the coordination and systematization of tort with other sources of regulation and compensation; redressing data theft and digital invasions of privacy; and heightened sensitivity to harm associated with sex, gender, and race-related misconduct.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document