Bookmark and Share

Torts

Edited by Ori Herstein (King's College London, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Related categories
Siblings:
188 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 188
  1. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Christopher Arnold (1980). Corrective Justice. Ethics 90 (2):180-190.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Shawn J. Bayern, The Failure of Economics in Tort Law: The Puzzle of Negligence.
    This article challenges the leading economic understanding of negligence rules in tort law. This economic understanding, which is meant both (1) to justify negligence rules over strict-liability rules and (2) to provide a framework for understanding whether victims or injurers should bear the costs of an accident when both parties are innocent and have behaved carefully, is repeated widely by leading law-and-economics scholars but is deeply flawed. This article explores the flaws in an attempt to take economic reasoning off the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Michael D. Bayles & Bruce Chapman (1983). Justice, Rights, and Tort Law.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Anita Bernstein (2002). Gerald J. Postema, Ed., Philosophy and the Law of Torts. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 22:354-356.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Shaw Bill & Martin William (1999). Aristotle and Posner on Corrective Justice: The Tortoise and the Hare. Business Ethics Quarterly 4.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. 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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. A. Botterell (2014). Corrective Justice, by Ernest J. Weinrib. Mind 123 (491):966-970.
    A review of Ernest Weinrib's _Corrective Justice_.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. 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   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19. 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   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. James B. Brady (1996). Conscious Negligence. American Philosophical Quarterly 33 (3):325 - 335.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Alfred L. Brophy, Reparations Talk: Reparations for Slavery and the Tort Law Analogy.
    There are two ways of viewing tort law in the debate over reparations for racial crimes. First - and most commonly - tort law is seen as a way of providing relief through courts. So Reparations Talk begins by exploring the requirements for lawsuits for reparations for slavery and for the Jim Crow era. It suggests some instances where lawsuits might be appropriate, such as riots, lynchings, and segregated libraries, and limited cases involving slavery. Tort doctrine also offers, however, a (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Alan Calnan, Duty and Integrity in Tort Law.
    The tort concept of duty lacks integrity in virtually every popular sense of that term. It is at once incomplete, unharmonious and unbeholden to any ethical principle or moral standard. Although these problems are interrelated, each corrupts tort jurisprudence in its own unique way. The incompleteness problem is particularly acute in theories of intentional tort and strict liability, where it is either selectively invoked or completely ignored. While duty holds a more prominent place in negligence, it has been fragmented into (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. 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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24. Peter Cane (2005). Taking Disagreement Seriously: Courts, Legislatures and the Reform of Tort Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (3):393-417.
    This article explores the relevance of disagreement about values and about the functions and effects of law to debates concerning the appropriate relationship between courts and legislatures, common law and statute. Recent developments in tort law provide a context for the discussion. The argument is that in general, political processes of law-making should be preferred judicial processes.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25. 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  29. Witting Christian (2000). Justifying Liability to Third Parties for Negligent Misstatements. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20 (4).
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Jules L. Coleman, Theories of Tort Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  33. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Jules L. Coleman (1993). Contracts and Torts. Law and Philosophy 12 (1):71 - 93.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  36. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  37. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Sean Coyle (2011). A Review of Izhak Englard, Corrective and Distributive Justice: From Aristotle to Modern Times. [REVIEW] Jurisprudence 2 (2):597-601.
  42. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  43. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44. Kai Devlin (1997). Rights, Necessity, and Tort Liability. Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (2):87-100.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. 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 (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Thomas Douglas (2009). Medical Injury Compensation: Beyond 'No-Fault'. Medical Law Review 17:30-51.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Izhak Englard (1993). The Philosophy of Tort Law. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Richard A. Epstein (1983). A Theory of Strict Liability. Philosophical Review 92 (4):613-617.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
1 — 50 / 188