Is the risk–liability theory compatible with negligence law?

Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404 (2005)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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 criticised 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.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HANCL
Upload history
Archival date: 2013-10-05
View other versions
Added to PP index
2010-12-22

Total views
202 ( #24,118 of 54,561 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #32,937 of 54,561 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.