Altruism in Private Law: Liability for Nonfeasance and Negotiorum Gestio
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
OUP Oxford (2005)
This book examines two problems in Private law which are posed by the 'good Samaritan': First, do we have a legal duty to give aid to our fellow human beings? In particular: can we be held liable for damages if we fail to do so? Second, if we do come to the rescue, as the good Samaritan did, will we have any claim for the expenses that we incurred, or perhaps even for a reward? Kortmann examines and compares the varied responses of the Roman, French, German, and English legal systems to these problems, providing the first comprehensive treatment of English law in relation to 'liability for nonfeasance' (or 'liability for omissions') and 'negotiorum gestio' (or 'the doctrine of necessity'). In Part I, Kortmann examines English law which draws a distinction between action and inaction, or 'feasance' and 'nonfeasance'. In general, one is not held liable for failing to act. He explores the theoretical justifications for drawing this distinction and reveals through a short comparative survey the fundamentally different approaches taken in France and Germany, concluding that the English rule of no liability for nonfeasance requires a reconsideration. In Part II the English approach to the problem of reimbursement or reward is examined, detailing its profound differences from the Continental European approach. In principle, English law does not grant the necessitous intervener a claim against the beneficiary of his intervention. Kortamnn examines the theoretical justifications for assuming this position and again concludes that the law deserves reconsideration. Finally, Kortmann concludes by demonstrating close interconnections between the two, traditionally independent issues. He argues that the law ought not to introduce a general duty to intervene without at the same time granting the intervener a claim, at the very least for reimbursement of expenses and compensation of any loss suffered in the course of the intervention.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Theodore M. Benditt (1982). Liability for Failing to Rescue. Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418.
William Lucy (2007). Philosophy of Private Law. Oxford University Press.
Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law? Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
Aukje A. H. Van Hoek, Transnational Corporate Social Responsibility: Some Issues with Regard to the Liability of European Corporations for Labour Law Infringements in the Countries of Establishment of Their Suppliers.
R. G. Frey & Christopher W. Morris (eds.) (1991). Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Morals. Cambridge University Press.
Joseph M. Steiner (1982). Putting Fault Back Into Products Liability: A Modest Reconstruction of Tort Theory. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 1 (3):419 - 449.
Jeff McMahan (2005). The Basis of Moral Liability to Defensive Killing. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):386–405.
John Arthur & William H. Shaw (eds.) (2010). Readings in the Philosophy of Law. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Alfredo Ferrante, A First Approach to the Avant-Projet Catala and to the New Contractual Liability and Tort in French Law.
Alex Broadbent (2009). Fact and Law in the Causal Inquiry. Legal Theory 15 (3):173-191.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-01-31
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?