This collection of essays represents a ground-breaking collaboration between moral philosophers, action theorists, lawyers and legal theorists to set a fresh research agenda on agency and responsibility in negligence. The complex phenomenon of responsibility in negligence is analysed from multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives, shedding light on key ethical and legal issues related to agency and negligence to impact substantive law and policy-making in different jurisdictions. The volume introduces new debates and questions old assumptions, inviting the reader to rethink substantive law and practical ethical reflection.

This book looks at the negligence concept of tort law and studies the efficiency issue arising from the determination of negligence. It does so by scrutinizing actual court decisions from three common law jurisdictions - Britain, India and the United States of America. This volume fills a very significant gap, scrutinizing 52 landmark judgments from these three countries, by focussing on the negligent affliction of economic loss determined by common law courts and how these findings relate to the existing theoretical literature. By doing so, it examines the formalization of legal concepts in theory, primarily the question of negligence determination and liability, and their centrality in theories concerning tort law. This book will be very helpful for students, professors and practitioners of law, jurisprudence and legal theory. It will additionally be of use to researchers and academics interested in law and economics, procedure and legal history.

Avizandum Legislation on the Scots Law of Obligations takes a unitary approach to this difficult and fragmented subject. It contains a wide-ranging selection of materials, including statutes, statutory instruments and codes, relating to contract, delict and unjustified enrichment, together with provisions that affect the general law on civil liability.

The EU has been active in attempting to harmonize the laws of product liability and sale of goods to consumers, with the aim of promoting fair competition, developing the internal market, and protecting consumers. But how do the resulting laws relate to existing national laws of liability and compensation? Is the resulting harmonization genuine or merely formal? Has implementation of the EC directives changed the law, but left claimants and defendants as differently treated as ever in different Member States? This comparative study considers the French and English laws governing all those who may be liable for products: their producers, their suppliers, their users and their regulators. To do so, it examines in each system the private law of tort and contract and aspects of the civil process which are important in determining liability; the administrative law concerning failures to regulate or control product safety; and the liability for products of suppliers of public services, such as water or healthcare. It considers how the substantive criminal offences affecting product safety, whether particular to products or under more general law, relate to civil liability or to compensation. The emerging picture reveals two complex and significantly different patterns of liability for products in the English and French systems, cutting across the traditional boundaries of private law, public law and criminal law. Implementation of the Product Liability Directive and Consumer Guarantees Directive required the insertion into these patterns of new elements, disharmonious with existing wider legal strategies and techniques. This study considers various problems of these directives' implementation in the French and English systems, the main issues of their proper interpretation, and the relationship of the new laws which they create with existing bases of liability. It explains the different significances given to 'fault,' 'negligence' and 'defect' (whether of safety or of contractual conformity); the relationship between judicial institutions and legal procedures in the determination of substantive legal issues; and the different relationships in the two laws studied between public and private, civil and criminal law. It concludes by offering wider comments on legal harmonisation based on the French and English experience in relation to these two directives.

By rewriting both canonical and lesser-known tort cases from a feminist perspective, this volume exposes gender and racial bias in how courts have categorized and evaluated harm stemming from pre-natal malpractice, pregnancy loss, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, invasion of privacy, and the award of economic and non-economic damages. The rewritten opinions demonstrate that when confronted with gendered harm to women, courts have often distorted or misapplied conventional legal doctrine to diminish the harm or deny recovery. Bringing this implicit bias to the surface can make law students, and lawyers and judges who craft arguments and apply tort doctrines, more aware of inequalities of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation or identity. This volume shows the way forward to make the basic doctrines of tort law more responsive to the needs and perspectives of traditionally marginalized people, in ways that give greater value to harms that they disproportionately experience.

By rewriting both canonical and lesser-known tort cases from a feminist perspective, this volume exposes gender and racial bias in how courts have categorized and evaluated harm stemming from pre-natal malpractice, pregnancy loss, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, invasion of privacy, and the award of economic and non-economic damages. The rewritten opinions demonstrate that when confronted with gendered harm to women, courts have often distorted or misapplied conventional legal doctrine to diminish the harm or deny recovery. Bringing this implicit bias to the surface can make law students, and lawyers and judges who craft arguments and apply tort doctrines, more aware of inequalities of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation or identity. This volume shows the way forward to make the basic doctrines of tort law more responsive to the needs and perspectives of traditionally marginalized people, in ways that give greater value to harms that they disproportionately experience.

From defamation to dangerous animals, and from negligence to nuisance, this concise guide gives you the key facts that you need, whether you're a busy law student, revising for those all-important exams or looking to brush up on your knowledge. This new edition has been fully updated with the latest legislation and case law, including Robinson v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Darnley v Croydon Health Services NH Trust, Steel v NRAM, Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, Barclays Bank v Various Claimants, Armes v Nottinghamshire CC, N v Poole BC and Wm Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants.

From defamation to dangerous animals, and from negligence to nuisance, this concise guide gives you the key facts that you need, whether you're a busy law student, revising for those all-important exams or looking to brush up on your knowledge. This new edition has been fully updated with the latest legislation and case law, including Robinson v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Darnley v Croydon Health Services NH Trust, Steel v NRAM, Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, Barclays Bank v Various Claimants, Armes v Nottinghamshire CC, N v Poole BC and Wm Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants.

Despite the centrality of the contributory negligence doctrine in practice, almost nothing is known about how it functions in reality. The authors, seeking to fill this deficit in understanding, have undertaken a wide-ranging empirical study of how the doctrine is handled by the courts. They report their methodology and findings in this volume, framing their discussion within the law of contributory negligence. The study is based on 572 first instance decisions on contributory negligence from across the United Kingdom decided between 2000 and 2016, and 129 appellate decisions handed down in the same period. The analysis considers the operation of the contributory negligence doctrine at first instance and on appeal, and in a range of contextual settings, including road accidents, accidents at work, and professional negligence claims. The authors also consider how the study can be used to inform future developments in this area of law. Substantial appendices set out the key data on which the book is based, enabling academics to utilize the dataset in their own research and allowing practitioners to compare their cases easily with previously decided claims.

in recent years, there has been a growing interest in the legal aspects of mass torts in Europe. Both academics, legislatures, courts and policymakers throughout the whole of Europe have been struggling with the challenges that such 'massification' of private law relationships poses both in and outside of tort law. The subject moves between the law of civil procedure, substantive tort law, access to justice debates and regulatory frameworks for mass disputes. This volume offers both a caleidoscopic review of real-life key cases of mass tort and an in-depth reflection on the broader implications of mass tort in Europe. Thus, the challenges posed by mass torts are explored, mapped and analysed.

This book addresses some of the most difficult and important debates over injury and law now taking place in societies around the world. The essays tackle the inescapable experience of injury and its implications for social inequality in different cultural settings. Topics include the tension between physical and reputational injuries, the construction of human injuries versus injuries to non-human life, virtual injuries, the normalization and infliction of injuries on vulnerable victims, the question of reparations for slavery, and the paradoxical degradation of victims through legal actions meant to compensate them for their disabilities. Authors include social theorists, social scientists and legal scholars, and the subject matter extends to the Middle East and Asia, as well as North America.

Mass-tort lawsuits over products like pelvic and hernia mesh, Roundup, opioids, talcum powder, and hip implants consume a substantial part of the federal civil caseload. But multidistrict litigation, which federal courts use to package these individual tort suits into one proceeding, has not been extensively analyzed. In Mass Tort Deals, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch marshals a wide array of empirical data to suggest that a systematic lack of checks and balances in our courts may benefit everyone but the plaintiffs - the very people who are often unable to stand up for themselves. Rather than faithfully representing them, plaintiffs' lawyers may sell them out in backroom settlements that compensate lawyers handsomely, pay plaintiffs little, and deny them the justice they seek. From diagnosis to reforms, Burch's goal isn't to eliminate these suits; it's to save them. This book is a must read for concerned citizens, policymakers, lawyers, and judges alike.

Mass-tort lawsuits over products like pelvic and hernia mesh, Roundup, opioids, talcum powder, and hip implants consume a substantial part of the federal civil caseload. But multidistrict litigation, which federal courts use to package these individual tort suits into one proceeding, has not been extensively analyzed. In Mass Tort Deals, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch marshals a wide array of empirical data to suggest that a systematic lack of checks and balances in our courts may benefit everyone but the plaintiffs - the very people who are often unable to stand up for themselves. Rather than faithfully representing them, plaintiffs' lawyers may sell them out in backroom settlements that compensate lawyers handsomely, pay plaintiffs little, and deny them the justice they seek. From diagnosis to reforms, Burch's goal isn't to eliminate these suits; it's to save them. This book is a must read for concerned citizens, policymakers, lawyers, and judges alike.

The papers in this collection are drawn from a symposium held in Vienna in December 2010. Organised by the Institute for European Tort Law and the Chicago-Kent Law Review, in collaboration with the European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law, the conference drew together legal experts from 14 national or regional systems across six continents. Medical malpractice and compensation for medical injuries are issues which regularly create tension and innovation in national legal systems but the analysis of these areas is often limited to national audiences. This study examines the issues in a uniquely global context, demonstrating the breadth of approaches currently taken around the world and revealing key areas of tension and the likely direction of future developments. Wherever possible, the analysis is supported by reference to empirical data. The 14 legal systems covered in the collection are Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Scandinavia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. A general comparative introduction completes the collection.

Causal uncertainty is a wide-spread phenomenon. Courts are often unable to determine whether a defendant's tortious conduct was a factual cause of a plaintiff's harm. Yet, sometimes courts can determine the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff's harm, although often there is considerable variance in the probability estimate based on the available evidence. The conventional way to cope with this uncertainty has been to apply the evidentiary rule of 'standard of proof'. The application of this 'all or nothing' rule can lead to unfairness by absolving defendants who acted tortiously and may also create undesirable incentives that result in greater wrongful conduct and injustice to victims. Some courts have decided that this 'no-liability' outcome is undesirable. They have adopted rules of proportional liability that compensate plaintiffs according to the probability that their harm was caused by the defendant's tortious conduct. In 2005 the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) made a breakthrough in this regard by embracing rules of proportional liability. This project, building on PETL, endeavours to make further inquiries into the desirable scope of proportional liability and to offer a more detailed view of its meaning, implications, and ramifications.

Today terrorism has become a world-wide phenomenon which does not stop at the European borders. Following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and terrorist attacks in Paris, Madrid and London, concerns have arisen in Europe about potential liability exposure for terrorism-related damage. This book tackles the problem of civil liability for damage caused by terrorist acts from several angles. The authors expertly deliver a comprehensive analysis of terrorism-related risk under international and EU law, and the national tort law systems of seven representative EU Member States. They also provide a comparison of the situation in Europe to the liability environment in the United States. Risk mitigation strategies are considered and critically assessed, as are alternative systems for redressing terrorism-related risks. The book concludes with a reflection on the analysis and presents possible strategies for future regulation by the European lawmakers.

Now in its ninth edition, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law explores the recent and continuous developments in personal injury law by applying social context to the relevant legal principles. Those principles remain in need of radical reform. Updates to the text include discussion of the major changes to the way compensation is calculated and claimed, evolving funding arrangements for personal injury litigation, and dramatic shifts in the claims management industry. Suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate students taking courses in tort law, this new edition balances theory, practice and context. It draws on new legislation, research and case law to offer the reader thought-provoking examples and analysis.

This large-scale comparative study analyses the two principal mechanisms employed in modern legal systems to deal with the social problem of occupational illness and injury, namely, employers' liability and workers' compensation. It provides a detailed description of the systems in operation in twelve countries around the world, investigating the complex legal structures and the interaction with other social institutions, as well as their inter-jurisdictional coordination through private international law. Current international trends are identified and assessed and the fundamental political issues highlighted and explored. The study's ultimate goals are not only descriptive but also to answer the question of how compensation and liability systems can best be adapted to meet society's needs in the 21st century. The countries covered are: Australia (Mark Lunney), Austria (Ernst Karner/Felix Kernbichler), Denmark (Vibe Ulfbeck), England and Wales (Richard Lewis), France (Florence G'Sell/Isabelle Veillard), Germany (Raimund Waltermann), Italy (Alessandro P Scarso/Massimo Foglia), Japan (Keizo Yamamoto/Tomohiro Yoshimasa), the Netherlands (Siewert D Lindenbergh), Poland (Domenika Doerre-Nowak), Romania (Christian Alunaru/Lucian Bojin) and the United States of America (Michael D Green/Daniel S Murdock). The book is completed by three concluding essays that address general themes: Thomas Thiede, The European Coordination of Employers' Liability and Workers' Compensation Ken Oliphant, The Changing Landscape of Work Injury Claims: Challenges for Employers' Liability and Workers' Compensation Gerhard Wagner, New Perspectives on Employers' Liability - Basic Policy Issues

The scope of vicarious liability has significantly expanded since its original conception. Today employers are being found liable for actions of employees that they did not authorise, and never would have authorised if asked. They are being held liable for an employee's criminal activity. In the related strict liability field of non-delegable duties, they are being held liable for wrongdoing of independent contractors. Notions of strict liability have grown increasingly isolated in the law of tort, given the exponential growth in the tort of negligence. They require intellectual justification. Such a justification has proven to be elusive and largely unsatisfactory in relation to vicarious liability and to concepts of non-delegable duty. The law of three jurisdictions studied has now apparently embraced the 'enterprise risk' theory to rationalise the imposition of vicarious liability. This book subjects this theory to strong critique by arguing that it has many weaknesses, which the courts should acknowledge. It suggests that a rationalisation of the liability of an employer for the actions of an employee lies in more traditional legal doctrine which would serve to narrow the circumstances in which an employer is legally liable for a wrong committed by an employee.

Through a comprehensive analysis of sixteen European legal systems, based on an assessment of national answers to a factual questionnaire, Causation in European Tort Law sheds light on the operative rules applied in each jurisdiction to factual and legal causation problems. It highlights how legal systems' features impact on the practical role that causation is called upon to play, as well as the arguments of professional lawyers. Issues covered include the conditions under which a causal link can be established, rules on contribution and apportionment, the treatment of supervening, alternative and uncertain causes, the understanding of loss-of-a-chance cases, and the standard and the burden of proving causation. This is a book for scholars, students and legal professionals alike.

Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida class action lawsuit brought against the cigarette manufacturers. More puzzling were two recent verdicts against the auto manufacturer BMW in Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same court before the same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, while the other awarded no punitive damages at all. In cases involving accidents, civil rights and the environment, multimillion dollar punitive awards have been a subject of intense controversy. But how do juries actually make decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors - specialists in psychology, economics and the law - present the results of controlled experiments with over 600 mock juries involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens. They find that although juries tended to agree in their moral judgements about the defendant's conduct, they rendered erratic and unpredictable dollar awards. Jurors also tended to ignore instructions from the judges; showed "hindsight bias", believing that what happened should have been foreseen; and penalized corporations that had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit analyses. While judges made many of the same errors, they performed better in some areas, suggesting that judges (or other specialists) may be better equipped than juries to decide punitive damages. With a wealth of new data and a host of provocative findings, this book documents a wide range of systematic bias in jury behaviour and should be valuable for anyone interested in punitive damages, jury behaviour, human psychology and the theory of punishment.

Ten years after the first study published in this field by the European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law, liability for medical malpractice is still a hot topic throughout Europe and it continues to expand and develop. In order to provide an update on the current situation across European legal systems, this book includes fourteen country reports authored by renowned experts from each legal system. In addition to providing a theoretical survey of key issues, each contributor also analyzed six hypotheticals based on actual cases, thereby also providing practical guidance on major aspects ofliability claims. A concluding comparative analysis highlights commonalities and differences in the liability rules employed, dispute resolution procedures and the insurance background.

Causation is a foundational concept in tort law: in claims for compensation, a claimant must demonstrate that the defendant was a cause of the injury suffered in order for compensation to be awarded. Proof of Causation in Tort Law provides a critical, comparative and theoretical analysis of the general proof rules of causation underlying the tort laws of England, Germany and France, as well as the exceptional departures from these rules which each system has made. Exploring the different approaches to uncertainty over causation in tort law, Sandy Steel defends the justifiability of some of these exceptions, and categorises and examines the kinds of exceptional rules suggested by the case law and literature. Critically engaged with both the theoretical literature and current legal doctrine, this book will be of interest to private law scholars, judges and legal practitioners.

Rights, Wrongs, and Injustices is the first comprehensive account of the scope, foundations, and structure of remedial law in common law jurisdictions. The rules governing the kinds of complaints that common law courts will accept are generally well understood. However, the rules governing when and how they respond to such complaints are not. This book provides that understanding. It argues that remedies are judicial rulings, and that remedial law is the law governing their availability and content. Focusing on rulings that resolve private law disputes (for example, damages, injunctions, and restitutionary orders), this book explains why remedial law is distinctive, how it relates to substantive law, and what its foundational principles are. The book advances four main arguments. First, the question of what courts should do when individuals seek their assistance (the focus of remedial law) is different from the question of how individuals should treat one another in their day-to-day lives (the focus of substantive law). Second, remedies provide distinctive reasons to perform the actions they command; in particular, they provide reasons different from those provided by either rules or sanctions. Third, remedial law has a complex relationship to substantive law. Some remedies are responses to rights-threats, others to wrongs, and yet others to injustices. Further, remedies respond to these events in different ways: while many remedies (merely) replicate substantive duties, others modify substantive duties and some create entirely new duties. Finally, remedial law is underpinned by general principles-principles that cut across the traditional distinctions between so-called "legal" and "equitable" remedies. Together, these arguments provide an understanding of remedial law that takes the concept of a remedy seriously, classifies remedies according to their grounds and content, illuminates the relationship between remedies and substantive law, and presents remedial law as a body of principles rather than a historical category.

This book undertakes an analysis of academic and judicial responses to the problem of evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence. It seeks to bring clarity to what has become a notoriously complex area by adopting a clear approach to the function of the doctrine of causation within a corrective justice-based account of negligence liability. It first explores basic causal models and issues of proof, including the role of statistical and epidemiological evidence, in order to isolate the problem of evidential uncertainty more precisely. Application of Richard Wright's NESS test to a range of English case law shows it to be more comprehensive than the 'but for' test that currently dominates, thereby reducing the need to resort to additional tests, such as the Wardlaw test of material contribution to harm, the scope and meaning of which are uncertain. The book builds on this foundation to explore the solution to a range of problems of evidential uncertainty, focusing on the Fairchild principle and the idea of risk as damage, as well as the notion of loss of a chance in medical negligence which is often seen as analogous with 'increase in risk', in an attempt to bring coherence to this area of the law.