Bookmark and Share

Torts

Edited by Ori Herstein (King's College London, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Related categories
Siblings:
130 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 130
  1. John Alati (2013). Australian Torts Law, [Book Review]. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory 229:37.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Larry A. Alexander (1987). Causation and Corrective Justice: Does Tort Law Make Sense? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 6 (1):1 - 23.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Christopher Arnold (1980). Corrective Justice. Ethics 90 (2):180-190.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Roderick Bagshaw (2012). The Edges of Tort Law's Rights. In Donal Nolan & Andrew Robertson (eds.), Rights and Private Law. Hart Pub..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Roderick Bagshaw (2009). Tort Law, Concepts and What Really Matters. In Andrew Robertson & Hang Wu Tang (eds.), The Goals of Private Law. Hart Pub..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Michael D. Bayles & Bruce Chapman (1983). Values in the Law of Tort: A Symposium (Part II). [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 2 (1):369-370.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Michael D. Bayles & Bruce Chapman (1982). Values in the Law of Tort: A Symposium. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 1 (3):369-370.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. P. Belli, G. Calabresi, P. Cane, R. Cooter, R. Dworkin, D. Fairgrieve & M. Faure (2001). Economic, Moral Philosophy, and the Positive Analysis of Tort Law. In Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts. Cambridge University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Theodore M. Benditt (1982). Liability for Failing to Rescue. Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418.
    Should there be civil liability when a person who could easily and without risk rescue another fails to do so? It is argued that the failure to act does not cause the harm that follows, and that the misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction provides no basis for liability. In spite of this, it is maintained that there can sometimes be a duty to rescue, and even a right to be rescued, even in the absence of a voluntary undertaking or an explicit assumption of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Peter Benson (1995). The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law. In David G. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press. 427--455.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Anita Bernstein (2002). Gerald J. Postema, Ed., Philosophy and the Law of Torts Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 22 (5):354-356.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. W. H. Beveridge (1908). Book Review:Roman Private Law. R. W. Leage. [REVIEW] Ethics 18 (4):525-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Shaw Bill & Martin William (1999). Aristotle and Posner on Corrective Justice: The Tortoise and the Hare. Business Ethics Quarterly 4.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Giovanna Borradori (2014). The Markers of Deconstructive Citizenship: A Corrective to the Constructionist Approach to Justice. [REVIEW] Philosophy Today 58 (3):477-486.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. A. Botterell (2014). Corrective Justice, by Ernest J. Weinrib. Mind 123 (491):966-970.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Andrew Botterell (2007). Property, Corrective Justice, and the Nature of the Cause of Action in Unjust Enrichment. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 20 (2):275-296.
    In this paper I reconsider the relation between property and unjust enrichment and respond to a recent argument that actions in unjust enrichment cannot be actions in corrective justice. I suggest that any analysis that regards actions in unjust enrichment as embodying principles of corrective justice requires supplementation by considerations that are, at bottom, proprietary in nature. I argue that there is no incompatibility in viewing actions in unjust enrichment as actions whose grounds are broadly proprietary in nature; that understanding (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Andrew Botterell & Chris Essert (2010). Normativity, Fairness, and the Problem of Factual Uncertainty. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 47 (4):663-693.
    This article concerns the problem of factual uncertainty in negligence law. We argue that negligence law’s insistence that fair terms of interaction be maintained between individuals—a requirement that typically manifests itself in the need for the plaintiff to prove factual or “but-for” causation—sometimes allows for the imposition of liability in the absence of such proof. In particular, we argue that the but-for requirement can be abandoned in certain situations where multiple defendants have imposed the same unreasonable risk on a plaintiff, (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. James B. Brady (1996). Conscious Negligence. American Philosophical Quarterly 33 (3):325 - 335.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Peter Cane (2007). The General/Special Distinction in Criminal Law, Tort Law and Legal Theory. Law and Philosophy 26 (5):465-500.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Peter Cane (2004). Gerald J. Postema, Ed., Philosophy and the Law of Torts:Philosophy and the Law of Torts. Ethics 114 (2):368-372.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Terence J. Centner (2010). New State Liability Exceptions for Agritourism Activities and the Use of Liability Releases. Agriculture and Human Values 27 (2):189-198.
    Agritourism activities have gained importance as a mechanism for some farmers to broaden their sources of income. As businesses have pursued agritourism activities, they have been concerned about liability for personal injuries of participants. In some states, providers of agritourism activities have presented legislators with ideas for an agritourism statute to limit liability for injuries resulting from inherent risks. Four new agritourism statutes have been enacted, while six other states have adopted alternative liability provisions that may apply to some agritourism (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Erika Chamberlain (2009). Negligent Investigation : Tort Law as Police Ombudsman. In Andrew Robertson & Hang Wu Tang (eds.), The Goals of Private Law. Hart Pub..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Bruce Chapman (1995). Wrongdoing, Welfare, and Damages: Recovery for Non-Pecuniary Loss in Corrective Justice. In David G. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. D. A. Coady (2002). Testing for Causation in Tort Law. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27 (1):1-10.
    The traditional, intuitively appealing, test for causation in tort law, known as 'the but-for test' has been subjected to what are widely believed to be devastating criticisms by Tony Honore, and Richard Wright, amongst others. I argue that the but-for test can withstand these criticisms. Contrary to what is now widely believed. there is no inconsistency between the but-for test and ordinary language, commonsense, or sound legal principle.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Jules Coleman (2001). Tort Law and Tort Theory: Preliminary Reflections on Method. In Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts. Cambridge University Press. 183.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Jules L. Coleman, Theories of Tort Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Jules L. Coleman (ed.) (1994). Private Law Theory. Garland Pub..
    The Tragedy of the Commons The population prohlem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Jules L. Coleman (1993). Contracts and Torts. Law and Philosophy 12 (1):71 - 93.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Jules L. Coleman (1992/2002). Risks and Wrongs. Oxford University Press.
    This book by one of America's preeminent legal theorists is concerned with the conflict between the goals of justice and economic efficiency in the allocation of risk, especially risk pertaining to safety. The author approaches his subject from the premise that the market is central to liberal political, moral, and legal theory. In the first part of the book, he rejects traditional "rational choice" liberalism in favor of the view that the market operates as a rational way of fostering stable (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Jules L. Coleman (1988/1998). Markets, Morals, and the Law. Oxford University Press.
    This collection of essays by one of America's leading legal theorists is unique in its scope: it shows how traditional problems of philosophy can be understood more clearly when considered in terms of law, economics, and political science.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Jules L. Coleman (1983). Moral Theories of Torts: Their Scope and Limits: Part II. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 2 (1):5 - 36.
    One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis - in the sense of rational reconstruction based on alleged moral principles - for the law of torts. The paper (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Jules L. Coleman (1982). Moral Theories of Torts: Their Scope and Limits: Part I. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 1 (3):371 - 390.
    One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis — for the law of torts. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I consider and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Joanne Conaghan (1996). Equity Rushes in Where Tort Law Fears to Tread: The Court of Appeal Decision in Burris V. Azadani. [REVIEW] Feminist Legal Studies 4 (2):221-228.
    In the present state of the law, there is no tort of harassment. Nor in the light of later authority can the view be upheld that there is no tort of harassment.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Michael L. Corrado (2001). Egalitarianism and the Problem of Tort Liability. Noûs 35 (s1):388-419.
    Is the negligence standard in accident law acceptable to the egalitarian? The egalitarian - the egalitarian who would compensate only losses for which the actor was not responsible - cannot accept either a system of strict liability for all accidents or a system of social insurance for all accidents. A system of tort law acceptable to the responsibility - egalitarian must be a system based on negligence. But what will negligence mean? A negligence system in which the notion of reasonableness (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Carl F. Cranor (2005). The Science Veil Over Tort Law Policy: How Should Scientific Evidence Be Utilized in Toxic Tort Law? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 24 (2):139 - 210.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Carl Cranor & Kurt Nutting (1990). Scientific and Legal Standards of Statistical Evidence in Toxic Tort and Discrimination Suits. Law and Philosophy 9 (2):115 - 156.
    Many legal disputes turn on scientific, especially statistical, evidence. Traditionally scientists have accepted only that statistical evidence which satisfies a 95 percent (or 99 percent) rule — that is, only evidence which has less than five percent (or one percent) probability of resulting from chance.The rationale for this rule is the reluctance of scientists to accept anything less than the best-supported new knowledge. The rule reflects the internal needs of scientific practice. However, when uncritically adopted as a rule for admitting (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Kai Devlin (1997). Rights, Necessity, and Tort Liability. Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (2):87-100.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Avihay Dorfman (2010). Can Tort Law Be Moral? Ratio Juris 23 (2):205-228.
    According to the established orthodoxy, the law of private wrongs—especially common law torts—fails to map onto our moral universe. Four objections in particular have caught the imagination of skeptics about the moral foundations of tort law: They purport to cast doubt over the moral appeal of the duty of care element; they target the seemingly inegalitarian objective standard of care; they object to the morally arbitrary elements of factual causation and harm; and they complain about the unnecessary extension of liability (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Thomas Douglas (2009). Medical Injury Compensation: Beyond 'No-Fault'. Medical Law Review 17:30-51.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. R. R. Dyer (1965). Aristotle's Categories of Voluntary Torts ( E.N. V. 1135b8–25). The Classical Review 15 (03):250-252.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Izhak Englard (1995). The Idea of Complementarity as a Philosophical Basis for Pluralism in Tort Law. In David G. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press. 183--195.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Heidi Li Feldman (2007). Prudence, Benevolence, and Negligence : Virtue Ethics and Tort Law. In Colin Patrick Farrelly & Lawrence Solum (eds.), Virtue Jurisprudence. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Heidi Li Feldman (2002). Review of Gerald J. Postema, Philosophy and the Law of Torts. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2002 (9).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. John Finnis (1995). Intention in Tort Law. In David G. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press. 229--47.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. George P. Fletcher (1983). The Search for Synthesis in Tort Theory. Law and Philosophy 2 (1):63 - 88.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. R. G. Frey & Christopher W. Morris (eds.) (1991). Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Morals. Cambridge University Press.
    This collection of contemporary essays by a group of well-known philosophers and legal theorists covers various topics in the philosophy of law, focusing on issues concerning liability in contract, tort, and criminal law. The book is divided into four sections. The first provides a conceptual overview of the issues at stake in a philosophical discussion of liability and responsibility. The second, third, and fourth sections present, in turn, more detailed explorations of the roles of notions of liability and responsibility in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. John Gardner (2011). What is Tort Law For? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice. Law and Philosophy 30 (1):1-50.
    In this paper I discuss the proposal that the law of torts exists to do justice, more specifically corrective justice, between the parties to a tort case. My aims include clarifying the proposal and defending it against some objections (as well as saving it from some defences that it could do without). Gradually the paper turns to a discussion of the rationale for doing corrective justice. I defend what I call the ‘continuity thesis’ according to which at least part of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. John C. P. Goldberg & Benjamin C. Zipursky (2012). Rights and Responsibility in the Law of Torts. In Donal Nolan & Andrew Robertson (eds.), Rights and Private Law. Hart Pub..
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. C. Gregory (2001). A Social Contract Conception of the Tort Law of Accidents. In Gerald J. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts. Cambridge University Press. 22.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Toby Handfield (2003). Nozick, Prohibition, and No-Fault Motor Insurance. Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):201–208.
    Is a Nozickian theory of rights compatible with a no-fault motor insurance scheme? I say, Yes. The argument turns on an explication of the basis on which a Nozickian justifies the prohibition of merely risky activities.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 130