|Abstract||The paper has dual aim: to analyse the structure of negligence, and to use it to offer an explanation of responsibility (for actions, omissions, consequences) in terms of the relations which must exist between the action (omission, etc.) and the agents powers of rational agency if the agent is responsible for the action. The discussion involves reflections on the relations between the law and the morality of negligence, the difference between negligence and strict liability, the role of excuses and the grounds of duties to pay damages.|
|Keywords||damages excuses, negligence, strict-liability liability, responsibility, morality|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred Dycus Miller & Jeffrey Paul (eds.) (1999). Responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Antony Duff (2009). Legal and Moral Responsibility. Philosophy Compass 4 (6):978-986.
Ernest J. Weinrib (1983). Toward a Moral Theory of Negligence Law. Law and Philosophy 2 (1):37 - 62.
Randall R. Curren (1992). A Causal Theory of Negligence. Social Philosophy Today 7:111-124.
Matt King (2009). The Problem with Negligence. Social Theory and Practice 35 (4):577-595.
Douglas Husak (2011). Negligence, Belief, Blame and Criminal Liability: The Special Case of Forgetting. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):199-218.
Ori J. Herstein (2010). Responsibility in Negligence: Why the Duty of Care is Not a Duty “To Try”. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):403-428.
Michael L. Corrado (2001). Egalitarianism and the Problem of Tort Liability. Noûs 35 (s1):388-419.
Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Thesis Compatible with Negligence Law? Legal Theory 11:387-404.
Added to index2009-09-04
Total downloads135 ( #3,245 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,390 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?