Noûs 35 (s1):388-419 (2001)
Is the negligence standard in accident law acceptable to the egalitarian? The egalitarian - the egalitarian who would compensate only losses for which the actor was not responsible - cannot accept either a system of strict liability for all accidents or a system of social insurance for all accidents. A system of tort law acceptable to the responsibility - egalitarian must be a system based on negligence. But what will negligence mean? A negligence system in which the notion of reasonableness is based on efficiency, I argue, is a system that redistributes wealth from the less well off to those better off. I consider alternative notions of reasonableness, ending up with a principle of proportional responsibility and distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial cases.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare.Richard J. Arneson - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (1):77 - 93.
Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome?Marc Fleurbaey - 1995 - Economics and Philosophy 11 (1):25.
[Book Review] Equality, Responsibility, and the Law. [REVIEW]Arthur Ripstein - 1999 - Ethics 111 (3):644-648.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Negligence and Insufficient Activity: The Missing Paradigm in Torts.David Gilo & Ehud Guttel - unknown
Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law?Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
Responsibility and the Negligence Standard.Joseph Raz - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
Putting Fault Back Into Products Liability: A Modest Reconstruction of Tort Theory. [REVIEW]Joseph M. Steiner - 1982 - Law and Philosophy 1 (3):419 - 449.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #129,323 of 2,169,652 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #60,873 of 2,169,652 )
How can I increase my downloads?