Is the risk–liability theory compatible with negligence law?

Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Similar books and articles

Responsibility and the Negligence Standard.Joseph Raz - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
Toward a moral theory of negligence law.Ernest J. Weinrib - 1983 - Law and Philosophy 2 (1):37 - 62.
Liability for failing to rescue.TheodoreM Benditt - 1982 - Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418.
Liability for Nursing Negligence in the Operating Room.Jane Greenlaw - 1982 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 10 (6):222-224.
Crimes of Negligence: Attempting and Succeeding. [REVIEW]Alfred R. Mele - 2012 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (3):387-398.
Professional and Agency Liability for Negligence in Child Protection.Donald C. Bross - 1983 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 11 (2):71-75.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
497 (#33,642)

6 months
123 (#24,811)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Toby Handfield
Monash University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references