Theoretical Inquiries in Law 3 (2) (2002)
Authors |
|
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 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Punishing the Awkward, the Stupid, the Weak, and the Selfish: The Culpability of Negligence.Michael S. Moore & Heidi M. Hurd - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):147-198.
Reasonableness on the Clapham Omnibus: Exploring the Outcome-Sensitive Folk Concept of Reasonable.Markus Kneer - forthcoming - In P. Bystranowski, Bartosz Janik & M. Prochnicki (eds.), Judicial Decision-Making: Integrating Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. Springer Nature.
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
Punishing the Awkward, the Stupid, the Weak, and the Selfish: The Culpability of Negligence.Michael S. Moore & Heidi M. Hurd - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):147-198.
Negligence*: KENNETH W. SIMONS.Kenneth W. Simons - 1999 - Social Philosophy and Policy 16 (2):52-93.
Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law?Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
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.
When is Negligent Inadvertence Culpable?: Introduction to Symposium, Negligence in Criminal Law and Morality.Kenneth W. Simons - 2011 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):97-114.
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 Good, the Bad, and the Klutzy: Criminal Negligence and Moral Concern.Andrew Ingram - 2015 - Criminal Justice Ethics 34 (1):87-115.
The Problem of Negligent Omissions: Medieval Action Theories to the Rescue.Michael Barnwell - 2010 - Brill.
Egalitarianism as Justification: Why and How Should Egalitarian Considerations Reshape the Standard of Care in Negligence Law?Tsachi Keren-Paz - 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 )
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