Is the risk–liability theory compatible with negligence law?

Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author's Profile

Toby Handfield
Monash University

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
503 (#29,872)

6 months
125 (#23,805)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?