This annotated bibliography reviews scholarly work on acquaintance and date rape published in recent years. Acquaintance rape research has grown significantly since the mid-1980s, and it is often argued that acquaintance rape is a common occurrence, especially on college campuses. It is also argued that this type of sexual assault is very different from stranger rape, principally because of the socially defined and accepted nature of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator.

Works specifically on acquaintance or date rape are included, as well as earlier works that led to the emergence of the separate conceptual category of acquaintance rape. Each work is summarized, and the annotation includes a statement of the purpose, the method, and the major findings of the work. Separate chapters are devoted to the incidence of acquaintance rape; its social correlates; and its causes, effects, treatment, and prevention.

The late John Fleming, emeritus Professor of Law in the University of California at Berkeley, was the pre-eminent torts lawyer of the age; his Law of Torts has influenced generations of students and scholars, and remains a classic of legal literature. In this volume, distinguished academics and judges from around the world pay tribute to him in a collection of essays which range widely across tort law, legal theory, legal history and comparative law. Topics discussed include: tort and human rights; the duty of care in negligence; codification of the law of obligations in Europe; the basis of strict liability in particular and of responsibility generally in tort law; and aspects of products liability. These stimulating essays have much to say about the past, present and future of the law of obligations and will be of great interest to scholars and lawyers of all legal systems. From the editors' preface John Fleming was one of the most influential writers on the law of torts and comparative law in the English-speaking world this century. His towering contribution to scholarship is evidenced not only by the great prestige his work attracts in academic circles but also by the frequency and high respect with which his work is cited by judges in appellate courts of many jurisdictions. The authors of this collection of essays on the law of obligations intend it as a tribute to his achievements.

Patrick Atiyah is one of the most important legal scholars of his generation in the common-law world. His publications cover a wide field: legal theory, legal history, the study of legal institutions, the law of tort (especially compensation for personal injuries) and, most famously perhaps, the law of contract. It is no exaggeration to say that by his work, Atiyah has opened up new ways of thinking about the law of obligations. This volume of essays, written by colleagues, friends, and admirers of Patrick Atiyah from the UK and abroad, reflects the breadth of his interests. As well as discussions of particular aspects of the law of contract and tort, it contains essays on the history and theory of contract and tort and on the role of judges and law teachers. There is also an assessment of the `law in context' movement of which Patrick Atiyah was a founder member and leading practitioner. Contributors: William Twining, Tony Honore, Jan Hellner, Robert S. Summers, John Bell, Paul D. Carrington, Robert Stevens, A. W. B. Simpson, Roy Goode, S. M. Waddams, Jane Stapleton, Donald Harris, John Dwyer, John Fleming, and Peter Cane.

This book looks anew at the tort remedy and reform proposals surrounding the modern debate on compensation for personal injuries. Arguing that serious distortions underlie the debate because of its focus on victims of traumatic accidents, the author calls for the consideration of other legally neglected but highly publicized sources of disability including man-made health hazards such as asbestos, tobacco, and Agent Orange, and socially-spread diseases such as AIDS. This ground-breaking study demonstrates that attention to such crucial issues explodes much of the conventional wisdom about just how to tackle reform and reveals that a fundamental rethinking of the compensation debate is urgently needed.

This book of essays champions tort scholarship that puts judges at centre stage: what they do, how they understand their role, the heterogeneous reasons they give for their decisions, and their constitutional responsibility to identify and articulate the 'living' and 'evolving' common law. This is 'reflexive tort scholarship'. Reflexive tort scholars seek dialogue with Bench and Bar. Their approach is very different from the currently fashionable academic search for 'grand theories' that descriptively assert that tort law is fundamentally 'all about one thing', a unifying idea that alone explains and justifies the whole of tort law. This book illustrates the advantages and pay-offs of the reflexive style of scholarship by showing how it illuminates key features of tort law. The first essay contrasts the reflexive approach with the Grand Theory approach, while the second essay identifies a principle of tort law (the 'cooperative principle'), that is latent in the cases and that vindicates the value of collaborative human arrangements. Identifying this principle calls into question, in disputes between commercial parties, the reasoning used to support one of the most entrenched lines of authority in tort law - that based on the famous case of Hedley Byrne v Heller. The final essay deploys the reflexive method to argue that the iconic 'but-for' test of factual causation is inadequate and narrower than the concept actually utilized in the cases. Application of the method also prompts a reassessment of the 'scope of duty' concept and of the appropriate characterisation of the much-discussed decision in SAAMCO. These essays, based on the 2018 Clarendon Law Lectures given at Oxford University, clearly demonstrate the value of scholarship that 'takes the judges seriously'.