Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):403-428 (2010)
Even though it offers a compelling account of the responsibility-component in the negligence standard—arguably the Holy Grail of negligence theory—Professor John Gardner is mistaken in conceptualizing the duty of care in negligence as a duty to try to avert harm. My goal here is to explain why and to point to an alternative account of the responsibility component in negligence. The flaws in conceiving of the duty of care as a duty to try are: failing to comport with the legal doctrine of negligence and failing as a revisionary account for the law; overly burdening autonomy and restricting the liberty of thought; adversely affecting the prevention of negligent harm—the essence of the negligence standard—; and, raising severe probative difficulties. Moreover, the duty of care also does not give rise to what I call a de facto duty to try. The duty of care is better construed to require only certain conduct and not trying. Returning to the primary appeal and motivation for exploring the validity of equating the duty of care with a duty to try—searching for the responsibility-component in the negligence standard—I argue that the responsibility-component in negligence does not take the form of an obligation to try but rather has a conditional form, manifested in the conditions of applicability of the negligence standard. In other words, the negligence standard comprises a conduct-based as opposed to a combined action-/intent-based duty (such as a duty to try) as its duty of care, a duty that only applies to actors who possess the capacity to intentionally or knowingly comply with it, or, put differently, possess the capacity to try.
|Keywords||Negligence Duty to Try Duty of Care Standard of Negligence Responsibility Moral Responsibility Law & Philosophy Jurisprudence Legal Theory Torts|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Environmental Duty of Care: From Ethical Principle Towards a Code of Practice for the Grazing Industry in Queensland (Australia). [REVIEW]Romy Greiner - 2014 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (4):527-547.
Similar books and articles
Responsibility and the Negligence Standard.Joseph Raz - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
The Role of Duty of Care in a Rights-Based Theory of Negligence Law.Stephen Perry - 2009 - In Andrew Robertson & Hang Wu Tang (eds.), The Goals of Private Law. Hart.
Leichhardt Municipal Council Vs. Montgomery: Non-Delegable Duties and Roads Authorities.Christian Witting - unknown -
Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law?Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
Legislative Duty and the Independence of Law.J. H. Bogart - 1987 - Law and Philosophy 6 (2):187 - 203.
Accountants' Duty to the Public for Audit Negligence.H. David Brecht - 1991 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 10 (3):85-100.
Divergence of Duty: Differences in Legal and Ethical Responsibilities.Blanks Hindman Elizabeth - 1999 - Journal of Mass Media Ethics 14 (4):213-230.
Added to index2010-09-05
Total downloads137 ( #32,201 of 2,132,879 )
Recent downloads (6 months)19 ( #25,916 of 2,132,879 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.