Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:00:13.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS THE RISK–LIABILITY THEORY COMPATIBLE WITH NEGLIGENCE LAW?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2005

Toby Handfield  and
Trevor Pisciotta
Toby Handfield
Affiliation:
Monash University
Trevor Pisciotta
Affiliation:
Monash University and University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David McCarthy has recently suggested that our compensation and liability practices may be interpreted as reflecting a fundamental norm to hold people liable for imposing risk of harm on others. Independently, closely related ideas have been criticized by Stephen R. Perry and Arthur Ripstein as incompatible with central features of negligence law. We aim to show that these objections are unsuccessful against McCarthy's risk–liability theory and that such an approach is a promising means both for understanding the moral basis of liability for negligence and for reasoning about possible reforms of the institution of negligence law.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 387 - 404
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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.)