Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Strict liability (3)
- SSRN (2)
- Damages (1)
- Design defects (1)
- Digital technology (1)
-
- Driverless cars (1)
- Economics of tort law (1)
- Excuses (1)
- Harvard Law Review (1)
- Ideological crime (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Law (1)
- Learned Hand formula (1)
- Liability (1)
- Moral realism (1)
- Moral truth (1)
- Morality (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Negligence liability (1)
- Objective negligence (1)
- Paradigms of liability (1)
- Products liability (1)
- Reciprocal risk (1)
- Responsibility (1)
- Right to recover (1)
- Strict-liability negligence (1)
- Theoretical Inquiries in Law (1)
- Tort law (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Driverless Cars And The Much Delayed Tort Law Revolution, Andrzej Rapaczynski
Driverless Cars And The Much Delayed Tort Law Revolution, Andrzej Rapaczynski
Faculty Scholarship
The most striking development in the American tort law of the last century was the quick rise and fall of strict manufacturers’ liability for the huge social losses associated with the use of industrial products. The most important factor in this process has been the inability of the courts and academic commentators to develop a workable theory of design defects, resulting in a wholesale return of negligence as the basis of products liability jurisprudence. This article explains the reasons for this failure and argues that the development of digital technology, and the advent of self-driving cars in particular, is likely …
Responsibility And The Negligence Standard, Joseph Raz
Responsibility And The Negligence Standard, Joseph Raz
Faculty Scholarship
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.
Probability Misestimates In Medical Care, Bailey Kuklin
Probability Misestimates In Medical Care, Bailey Kuklin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Morality Of Evolutionarily Self-Interested Rescues, Bailey Kuklin
The Morality Of Evolutionarily Self-Interested Rescues, Bailey Kuklin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Fault Of Not Knowing, George P. Fletcher
The Fault Of Not Knowing, George P. Fletcher
Faculty Scholarship
Despite the outpouring of interest in tort and criminal theory over the last thirty years, not much progress has been made toward understanding the basic concepts for analyzing liability. Common law theorists of torts and criminal law tend to accept the conventional distinction between objective and subjective standards and the view that objective negligence is not really fault in the way that subjective negligence is. The author's view is that this distinction between objective and subjective standards is misunderstood and that, in fact, so-called objective negligence is a test of fault or culpability in the same way that subjective standards …
The Plausibility Of Legally Protecting Reasonable Expectations, Bailey Kuklin
The Plausibility Of Legally Protecting Reasonable Expectations, Bailey Kuklin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Continuing Classroom Conversation Beyond The Well-Placed "Whys?", Bailey Kuklin, Jeffery J. Stemple
Continuing Classroom Conversation Beyond The Well-Placed "Whys?", Bailey Kuklin, Jeffery J. Stemple
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Fairness And Utility In Tort Theory, George P. Fletcher
Fairness And Utility In Tort Theory, George P. Fletcher
Faculty Scholarship
Professor Fletcher challenges the traditional account of the development of tort doctrine as a shift from an unmoral standard of strict liability for directly causing harm to a moral standard based on fault. He then sets out two paradigms of liability to serve as constructs for understanding competing ideological viewpoints about the proper role of tort sanctions. He asserts that the paradigm of reciprocity, which looks only to the degree of risk imposed by the parties to a lawsuit on each other, and to the existence of possible excusing conditions, provides greater protection of individual interests than the paradigm of …