David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):185-208 (2004)
Faculty of Law and Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto 1. INTRODUCTION The economic analysis of law has gone through a remarkable change in the past decade and a half. The founding articles of the discipline – such classic pieces as Ronald Coase’s “The problem of social cost” (1960), Richard Posner’s “A theory of negligence” (1972) and Guido Calabresi and Douglas Malamed’s “Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral” (1972) – offered economic analyses of familiar aspects of the common law, seeking to explain, in particular, fundamental features of the law of tort in terms of such economic ideas as transaction costs (Coase), Kaldor-Hicks efﬁciency (Posner), or minimizing the sum of the accident costs and avoidance costs (Calabresi and Malamed). In each case, they argued that the law of torts should be understood as a set of liability rules selected for their incentive effects, rather than as a set of substantive rights and remedies for their violation. These authors claimed to be able to explain most of the features of tort law and, where features were found that did not ﬁt with their preferred explanations, recommended modiﬁcation. Although they disagreed on important questions,1 each of the pieces seems to work a manageable structure into what strikes ﬁrst-year law students as an otherwise random morass of common-law judgments. Generations of legal academics were introduced to these works, and drawn into their way of looking at things. As a student studying ﬁrst-year torts with Calabresi at Yale, I had the sense that I was in the presence of greatness
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||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
Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law? Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
David G. Owen (ed.) (1995). Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford University Press.
Jules L. Coleman (1992/2002). Risks and Wrongs. Oxford 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.
Gerald J. Postema (ed.) (2001). Philosophy and the Law of Torts. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #86,210 of 1,696,220 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #92,256 of 1,696,220 )
How can I increase my downloads?