Stan. L. Rev 62:1445 (2009)

Authors
Govind Persad
University of Denver
Abstract
This Note offers a normative critique of cost-benefit analysis, one informed by deontological moral theory, in the context of the debate over whether tort litigation or a non-tort approach is the appropriate response to mass harm. The first Part argues that the difference between lay and expert intuitions about risk and harm often reflects a difference in normative judgments about the existing facts, rather than a difference in belief about what facts exist, which makes the lay intuitions more defensible. The second Part considers how tort has dealt with this divergence between lay and expert perspectives. It also evaluates how tort's approach has differed from that of public law approaches to accident law, such as legislative compensation and risk regulation by administrative agencies. Ultimately, tort's ability to recognize the value of lay intuitions supports retaining the tort perspective as part of our societal arsenal of responses to risk and harm. This ability can also support a pro-tort perspective in two practical debates in the arena of tort law: that over preemption of tort law by administrative agency judgments, and that over access to tort recovery as part of a no-fault system.
Keywords risk  regulation  tort  deontology  cost-benefit analysis  expertise  doing and allowing  intransitivity  inviolability  expressive
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Studying Genetic Risk in the Conduct of Everyday Life.Lotte Huniche - 2003 - Outlines. Critical Practice Studies 5 (1):47-54.
Thin, Fine and with Sensitivity: A Metamethodology of Intuitions.James Andow - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology (1):1-21.
Liability for Failing to Rescue.TheodoreM Benditt - 1982 - Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418.
Philosophical Issues in Tort Law.John Oberdiek - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (4):734-748.
Tort Law and Corrective Justice.Hanoch Sheinman - 2003 - Law and Philosophy 22 (1):21-73.
Liability and Risk.David McCarthy - 1996 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (3):238-262.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-10-05

Total views
365 ( #25,667 of 2,463,162 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #53,478 of 2,463,162 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes