Bookmark and Share

Torts

Edited by Ori Herstein (King's College London)
Related categories
Siblings:
84 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 84
  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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. 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  
  3. 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  
  4. 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  
  5. 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  
  6. 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  
  7. Andrew Botterell (2007). Property, Corrective Justice, and the Nature of the Cause of Action in Unjust Enrichment. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 20:275-296.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. 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 |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. 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  
  10. 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  
  11. 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  
  12. Jules L. Coleman, Theories of Tort Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. 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  
  14. 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  
  15. 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  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. 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  
  17. 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  
  18. 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  
  19. 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 (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. 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  
  21. 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  
  22. 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  
  23. 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  
  24. 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  
  25. 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  
  26. 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  
  27. 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  
  28. 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  
  29. 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  
  30. 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  
  31. 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 (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law? Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
    David McCarthy has recently suggested that our compensation and liability practices may be interpreted as reflecting a fundamental norm to hold people liable for imposing risk of harm on others. Independently, closely related ideas have been criticised by Stephen R. Perry and Arthur Ripstein as incompatible with central features of negligence law. We aim to show that these objections are unsuccessful against McCarthy’s Risk–liability theory, and that such an approach is a promising means both for understanding the moral basis of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Ori J. Herstein (2013). Why 'Nonexistent People' Do Not Have Zero Wellbeing but No Wellbeing at All. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):136-145.
    Some believe that the harm or benefit of existence is assessed by comparing a person's actual state of wellbeing with the level of wellbeing they would have had had they never existed. This approach relies on ascribing a state or level of wellbeing to ‘nonexistent people’, which seems a peculiar practice: how can we attribute wellbeing to a ‘nonexistent person'? To explain away this oddity, some have argued that because no properties of wellbeing can be attributed to ‘nonexistent people’ such (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. S. J. (1997). A Non-Solution to a Non-Problem: A Comment on Alan Strudler's Ldquomass Torts and Moral Principlesrdquo. Law and Philosophy 16 (1):91-100.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Jack E. Karns (1990). Economics, Ethics, and Tort Remedies: The Emerging Concept of Hedonic Value. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 9 (9):707-713.
    This article reviews the development of hedonic value of life as a remedy in wrongful death and personal injury tort cases. Hedonic value estimates the worth of lost pleasures of living in an effort to compensate for intangible enjoyments, such as quality of education and environmental standards. This remedy goes well beyond the traditional approach which has compensated primarily for lost earnings and other expenses directly related to the tortious conduct. Most of the attention regarding hedonic value as a relatively (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Tsachi Keren-Paz (2010). Poetic Justice: Why Sex-Slaves Should Be Allowed to Sue Ignorant Clients in Conversion. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 29 (3):307-336.
    In this article I argue that clients who purchase commercial sex from forced prostitutes should be strictly liable in tort towards the sex-slaves. Such an approach is both normatively defensible and doctrinally feasible. As I have argued elsewhere, fairness and equality demand that clients compensate sex-slaves even if one refuses to acknowledge that fault is involved in purchasing sex from a prostitute who might be forced. In this article I argue that such strict liability could be grounded in the tort (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Howard Klepper (1990). Torts of Necessity: A Moral Theory of Compensation. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 9 (3):223 - 239.
    Tort cases in which an actor justifiably takes or damages the property of another have resisted analysis in terms of fault or economic efficiency. I argue that writers such as Jules Coleman and Judith Thomson, who locate the wrongfulness of the necessity torts in the infringement of a property right, have not illuminated the issue of why compensation is owed in these cases. My positive argument locates the wrongfulness of an uncompensated taking in these cases in the actor's interference with (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jody S. Kraus (1997). A Non-Solution to a Non-Problem: A Comment on Alan Strudler's“Mass Torts and Moral Principles”. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 16 (1):91 - 100.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Mark Kuperberg & Charles R. Beitz (eds.) (1983). Law, Economics, and Philosophy: A Critical Introduction, with Applications to the Law of Torts. Rowman & Allanheld.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Richard L. Lippke (2003). Desert, Harm Reduction, and Moral Education: The Case for a Tortfeasor Penalty. Res Publica 9 (2):127-147.
    Those found liable for negligently injuring others are required to compensate them, but current practices permit most tort feasors to spread the costs of their liability burdens through the purchase of insurance. Those found guilty of criminal offences, however, are not allowed to shift the burdens of their sentences onto others. Yet the reasons for not allowing criminal offenders to shift such burdens – harm reduction, retribution, and moral education – also appear to retain some force in relation to negligent (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Barry M. Loewer (1985). What is Wrong with 'Wrongful Life' Cases? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (2):127-146.
    torts raise a number of interesting and perplexing philosophical issues. In a suit for ‘wrongful life’, the plaintiff (usually an infant) brings an action (usually against a physician) claiming that some negligent action has caused the plaintiff's life, say by not informing the parents of the likely prospect that their child would be born with severe defects. The most perplexing feature of this is that the plaintiff is claiming that he would have been better off if he had never been (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. William Lucy (2007). Philosophy of Private Law. Oxford University Press.
    In what, if any sense are our torts and our breaches of contract 'wrongs'? These two branches of private law have for centuries provided philosophers and jurists with grounds for puzzlement and this book provides both an outline of, and intervention in, contemporary jurisprudential debates about the nature and foundation of liability in private law.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Douglas MacLean (2009). Book Reviews:Toxic Torts. [REVIEW] Ethics 119 (3):558-561.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Desmond Manderson (2009). Current Legal Maxims in Which the Word Neighbour Occurs' : Levinas and the Law of Torts. In , Essays on Levinas and Law: A Mosaic. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Ron McClamrock (1994). When Is Birth Unfair to the Child? Hastings Center Report 24 (6):15-21.
    Is it wrong to bring children who will have serious diseases and disabilities into the world? In particular, is it unfair to them ? The notion that existence itself can be an injury is the basis for a recent new tort known as "wrongful life" (Steinbock, 1986). This paper considers Feinberg's theory of harm as the basis for a claim of wrongful life, and concludes that rarely can the stringent conditions imposed by his analysis be met. Another basis for maintaining (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. E. Haavi Morreim (1988). The Concept of Harm Reconceived: A Different Look at Wrongful Life. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 7 (1):3 - 33.
    In wrongful life litigation a congenitally impaired child brings suit against those, usually physicians, whose negligence caused him to be born into his suffering existence. A key conceptual question is whether we can predicate harm in such cases. While a few courts have permitted it, many courts deny that we can, and thus have refused these children standing to sue. In this article the author examines the wrongful life cases and literature enroute to a broader consideration of harm. This literature, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Donal Nolan (2009). Causation and the Goals of Tort Law. In Andrew Robertson & Hang Wu Tang (eds.), The Goals of Private Law. Hart Pub..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. John Oberdiek (2008). Philosophical Issues in Tort Law. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):734-748.
    The union of contemporary philosophy and tort law has never been better. Perhaps the most dynamic current in contemporary tort theory concerns the increasingly sophisticated inquires into the doctrinal elements of the law of torts, with the tort of negligence in particular garnering the most attention from theorists. In this article, I examine philosophically rich issues revolving around each of the elements constituting the tort of negligence: compensable injury, duty, breach, actual cause, and proximate cause.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. John Oberdiek (2008). Specifying Rights Out of Necessity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (1):19.
    It is the purpose of this article to make the positive case for an under-appreciated conception of rights: specified rights. In contrast to rights conceived generally, a specified right can stand against different behaviour in different circumstances, so that what conflicts with a right in one context may not conflict with it in another. The specified conception of rights thus combines into a single inquiry the two questions that must be answered in invoking the general conception of rights, identifying the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. David G. Owen (ed.) (1995). Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
    This collection of original essays on the theory of tort law brings together a number of the world's leading legal philosophers and tort scholars to examine the latest thinking about its rationales and current development. The contributions here range from law and economics to the latest in rights-based theories. The ever-engaging topic of causation is the subject of one cluster of essays, while other clusters deal with remedies, with the tort/contract divide, and with strict and other special forms of liability.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 84