Authors
Michael Moore
Louisiana State University
Abstract
The article examines what has come to be known as "the risk analysis" in Anglo-American tort law and contract law. The risk analysis essentially consists of: viewing negligence as a relational concept, so that a defendant is never simply negligent tout cour, but is negligent only with respect to certain persons and certain harms — other harms suffered by other persons are said not to be "within the risk" that makes the defendant negligent; and the supplanting of proximate cause doctrine with doctrines of duty, the duty question being determined by the question of whether a certain person and a certain harm are within the risk that makes a defendant negligent. The article aims to explode entirely the risk analysis. After beginning with an examination of the historical roots of the risk analysis, we then seek to show that the risk analysis is: conceptually incoherent because it seeks to isolate a risk that makes someone negligent; normatively undesirable because it allows quite blameworthy actors not to pay for the harms they culpably cause; and descriptively inaccurate of the cases decided on the more traditional, proximate cause bases.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.2202/1565-3404.1054
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,079
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

Justifying Self-Defense.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2005 - Law and Philosophy 24 (6):711-749.
Negligence: Its Moral Significance.Santiago Amaya - forthcoming - In Manuel Vargas & John M. Doris (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Problem with Negligence.Matt King - 2009 - Social Theory and Practice 35 (4):577-595.
Harm and Justification in Negligence.Leo Katz - 2003 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 4 (1).
Negligence*: KENNETH W. SIMONS.Kenneth W. Simons - 1999 - Social Philosophy and Policy 16 (2):52-93.
Many Duties of Care—Or A Duty of Care? Notes From the Underground.David Howarth - 2006 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 (3):449-472.
Causal Uncertainty.Ernest J. Weinrib - 2016 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 36 (1):135-164.
Negligence.Kenneth W. Simons - 1999 - Social Philosophy and Policy 16 (2):52.
Liability and Risk.David McCarthy - 1996 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (3):238-262.
Responsibility in Negligence: Why the Duty of Care is Not a Duty “To Try”.Ori J. Herstein - 2010 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):403-428.
The Many Faces of Negligence.Ariel Porat - 2003 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 4 (1).

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-12-14

Total views
11 ( #852,053 of 2,506,007 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,506,007 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes