Social Philosophy and Policy 16 (02):52- (1999)
Negligence is both an important concept and an ambiguous one. Here I concentrate upon the sense of creating an unjustifiable, low-probability risk of future harm. This essay attempts to dispel theprevalent view that only a maximizing, utilitarian approach can render intelligible certain features of negligence analysis—its focus on the marginal advantages and disadvantages of the actor's taking a specific precaution, its consideration and balancing of the short-term effects of different actions, and its sensitivity to a multiplicity of factors. Perhaps certain absolutist deontological perspectives are inconsistent with these features; but other deontological perspectives (not to mention other nonutilitarian and partially nonconsequentialist perspectives) can easily accommodate them. Careful examination of the concept of negligence helps resolve an important debate about the nature of tort law, supporting the view that fault, rather than corrective justice, is the better interpretation and justification of Anglo-American tort doctrine.
Keywords negligence  corrective justice
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0265052500002399
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Michael Huemer (2010). Lexical Priority and the Problem of Risk. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3):332-351.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Joseph Raz (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
Joseph Raz (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
Matt King (2009). The Problem with Negligence. Social Theory and Practice 35 (4):577-595.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

17 ( #160,237 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.