Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:17:10.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The vulnerable subject of negligence law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2012

Carl F. Stychin
Carl F. Stychin*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
*
c.f.stychin@reading.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The approach taken by English courts to the duty of care question in negligence has been subject to harsh criticism in recent years. This article examines this fundamental issue in tort law, drawing upon Canadian and Australian jurisprudence by way of comparison. From this analysis, the concept of vulnerability is developed as a productive means of understanding the duty of care. Vulnerability is of increasing interest in legal and political theory and it is of particular relevance to the law of negligence. In addition to aiding doctrinal coherence, vulnerability – with its focus on relationships and care – has the potential to broaden the way in which the subject of tort law is conceived because it challenges dominant assumptions about autonomy as being prior to the relationships on which it is dependent.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 337 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkins, Peter J., Hassan, M. Manzurul and Dunn, Christine E. (2006) ‘Toxic Torts: Arsenic Poisoning in Bangladesh and the Legal Geographies of Responsibility’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31: 272–85.Google Scholar
Barker, Andrew (2003) ‘The Duty of Care and the Search for Certainty: Sullivan v. Moody, Cooper v. Hobart, and the Problems in the South Pacific’, New Zealand Law Journal: 44–48.Google Scholar
Barker, Kit (1993) ‘Unreliable Assumptions in the Modern Law of Negligence’, Law Quarterly Review 109: 461–84.Google Scholar
Barnett, Clive and Land, David (2007) ‘Geographies of Generosity: Beyond the “Moral Turn”’, Geoforum 38: 1065–75.Google Scholar
Beever, Allan (2003) ‘Particularism and Prejudice in the Law of Tort’, Tort Law Review 11: 146–67.Google Scholar
Beever, Allan (2007) Rediscovering the Law of Negligence. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Beever, Allan (2008) ‘Corrective Justice and Personal Responsibility in Tort Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28: 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Russell (2003) ‘Still Crazy After All These Years: Anns, Cooper v. Hobart and Pure Economic Loss’, University of British Columbia Law Review 36: 159–91.Google Scholar
Brown, Russell (2005) ‘Justifying the Impossibility of Recoverable Relational Economic Loss’, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 5: 155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Russell and Brochu, Shannon (2008) ‘Once More Unto the Breach: James v. British Columbia and Problems with the Duty of Care in Canadian Tort Law’, Alberta Law Review 45: 1071–88.Google Scholar
Conaghan, Joanne (2003) ‘Tort Law and Feminist Critique’, in Freeman, M. D. A. (ed.), Current Legal Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175–209.Google Scholar
Drakopoulou, Maria (2000) ‘The Ethic of Care, Female Subjectivity and Feminist Legal Scholarship’, Feminist Legal Studies 8: 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fineman, Martha Albertson (2008–2009) ‘The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition’, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20: 1–23.Google Scholar
George, James (2002) ‘Watson v. British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-Making in the Court of Appeal’, Modern Law Review 65: 106–119.Google Scholar
Gergen, Mark P. (2006) ‘The Ambit of Negligence Liability for Pure Economic Loss’, Arizona Law Review 48: 749–72.Google Scholar
Gilliker, Paula (2005) ‘Revisiting Pure Economic Loss: Lessons to be Learnt from the Supreme Court of Canada?’, Legal Studies 25: 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. (1985) Protecting the Vulnerable. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, John (2008) ‘Confusion, Contradiction and Chaos within the House of Lords post Caparo v. Dickman’, Tort Law Review 16: 8–22.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia (2006) The Ethics of Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howarth, David (2005) ‘Poisoned Wells: “Proximity” and “Assumption of Responsibility” in Negligence’, Cambridge Law Journal 64: 23–26.Google Scholar
Katter, Norman (2004) ‘“Who Then in Law is My Neighbour?”: Reverting to First Principles in the High Court of Australia’, Tort Law Review 12: 85–97.Google Scholar
Keeler, J. F. (1989) ‘The Proximity of Past and Future: Australian and British Approaches to Analysing the Duty of Care’, Adelaide Law Review 12: 93–125.Google Scholar
Kidner, Richard (1987) ‘Resiling from the Anns Principle: The Variable Nature of Proximity in Negligence’, Legal Studies 7: 319–32.Google Scholar
Klar, Lewis (2002) ‘Foreseeability, Proximity and Policy’, Advocates' Quarterly 25: 360–77.Google Scholar
Kramer, Adam (2003) ‘Proximity as Principles: Directness, Community Norms and the Tort of Negligence’, Tort Law Review 11: 70–103.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel (1991 [1961]) Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso, Lingis.Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel (1991 [1974]) Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence, trans. Alphonso, Lingis.Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona and Stoljar, Natalie (eds) (2000) Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manderson, Desmond (2006) Proximity, Levinas, and the Soul of Law. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcivor, Claire (2010) ‘Getting Defensive About Police Negligence: The Hill Principle, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the House of Lords’, Cambridge Law Journal 69: 133–50.Google Scholar
Moyes, Toni (2005) ‘“Handle With Care” – Labels and Content of the Duty of Care in Negligence’, Canterbury Law Review 11: 1–29.Google Scholar
Owen, David G. (1995) ‘Foreword: Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law’, in Owen, David G. (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–27.Google Scholar
Pitel, Stephen G. A. (2002) ‘Negligence: Canada Remakes the Anns Test’, Cambridge Law Journal 61: 252–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafferty, Nicholas (2008) ‘The Canadian Supreme Court's Approach to the Duty Question and the Tort of Negligent Investigation’, Professional Negligence 24: 78–92.Google Scholar
Robertson, Andrew (2011) ‘Justice, Community Welfare and the Duty of Care’, Law Quarterly Review 127: 370–95.Google Scholar
Silk, John (2004) ‘Caring at a Distance: Gift Theory, Aid Chains and Social Movements’, Social & Cultural Geography 5: 229–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Keith (2007) ‘Decision-making in the Tort of Negligence in the House of Lords’, Tort Law Review 15: 93–106.Google Scholar
Stapleton, Jane (1998) ‘Duty of Care Factors: A Selection from the Judicial Menu’, in Cane, Peter and Stapleton, Jane (eds), The Law of Obligations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 59–91.Google Scholar
Stapleton, Jane (2002) ‘Comparative Economic Loss: Lessons from Case-Law-Focused “Middle Theory”’, University of California at Los Angeles Law Review 50: 531–83.Google Scholar
Stapleton, Jane (2003–2004) ‘The Golden Thread at the Heart of Tort Law’, Australian Bar Review 24: 135–49.Google Scholar
Stychin, Carl F. (1998) ‘Body Talk: Rethinking Autonomy, Commodification and the Embodied Legal Self’, in Sheldon, Sally and Thomson, Michael (eds), Feminist Perspectives on Health Care Law. London: Cavendish Publishing, 211–36.Google Scholar
Stychin, Carl F. (2007) ‘De-Meaning of Contract’, in Munro, Vanessa and Stychin, Carl (eds), Sexuality and the Law: Feminist Engagements. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 73–89.Google Scholar
Tan, David (2010) ‘The Salient Features of Proximity: Examining the Spandeck Formulation for Establishing a Duty of Care’, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies: 459–83.Google Scholar
Van rijswijk, Honni (2010) ‘Mabel Hannah's Justice: A Contextual Re-Reading of Donoghue v. Stevenson’, Public Space: The Journal of Law and Social Justice 5(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vines, Prue (1993) ‘Proximity as Principle or Category: Nervous Shock in Australia and England’, University of New South Wales Law Journal 16: 458–80.Google Scholar
Weinrib, Ernest J. (2006) ‘The Disintegration of Duty’, Advocates' Quarterly 31: 212–56.Google Scholar
Williams, Kevin (2008) ‘Emergency Services to the Rescue?’, Journal of Personal Injury Law 3: 202–208.Google Scholar
Witting, Christian (2002) ‘The Three Stage Test Abandoned in Australia – Or Not?’, Law Quarterly Review 118: 214–21.Google Scholar
Witting, Christian (2005) ‘Duty of Care: An Analytical Approach’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witting, Christian (2007) ‘Tort Law, Policy and the High Court of Australia’, Melbourne University Law Review 31: 569–90.Google Scholar
Witting, Christian (2008) ‘The House that Dr Beever Built: Corrective Justice, Principle and the Law of Negligence’, Modern Law Review 71: 621–40.Google Scholar