Is the risk–liability theory compatible with negligence law?

Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404 (2005)
Abstract
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 liability for negligence and for reasoning about possible reforms of the institution of negligence law.
Keywords Negligence law  liability  risk  causation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Similar books and articles
    Joseph Raz (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
    Joseph Raz (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
    Jane Greenlaw (1982). Liability for Nursing Negligence in the Operating Room. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 10 (6):222-224.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2010-12-22

    Total downloads

    25 ( #58,712 of 1,089,047 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    4 ( #24,247 of 1,089,047 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.