Graduate studies at Western
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18 (2010)
|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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joseph Raz (2010). Being in the World. Ratio 23 (4):433-452.
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.
Matt King (2009). The Problem with Negligence. Social Theory and Practice 35 (4):577-595.
Randall R. Curren (1992). A Causal Theory of Negligence. Social Philosophy Today 7:111-124.
Ernest J. Weinrib (1983). Toward a Moral Theory of Negligence Law. Law and Philosophy 2 (1):37 - 62.
Douglas Husak (2011). Negligence, Belief, Blame and Criminal Liability: The Special Case of Forgetting. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):199-218.
Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law? Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
Alfred R. Mele (2012). Crimes of Negligence: Attempting and Succeeding. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (3):387-398.
Joseph Raz (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
Added to index2009-07-23
Total downloads92 ( #9,287 of 739,401 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,401 )
How can I increase my downloads?