scholarly journals The Mistaken Restriction of Strict Liability to Uncommon Activities

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Shavell
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Activity Requirement ◽  
Negligence Rule

Abstract Courts generally insist that two criteria be met before imposing strict liability rather than basing liability on the negligence rule. The first—that the injurer’s activity must be dangerous—is sensible because strict liability possesses general advantages over the negligence rule in controlling risk. But the second—that the activity must be uncommon—is ill-advised because it exempts all common activities from strict liability no matter how dangerous they are. Thus, the harm generated by the large swath of common dangerous activities—from hunting, to construction, to the transmission of natural gas—is inadequately regulated by tort law. After developing this theme and criticizing ostensible justifications for the uncommon activity requirement, the article addresses the question of how it arose. The answer is that its legal pedigree is problematic: it appears to have been invented by the authors of the first Restatement of Torts. The conclusion is that the uncommon activity requirement for the imposition of strict liability should be eliminated.

Lapses and Substitution

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Cooter ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
Negligence Rule

This chapter deals with lapses of attention, for example by a driver or a doctor, and explains how a negligence rule gives injurers an incentive to substitute activities with unavoidable accidents for activities with lapses. Under current tort law, a lapse of attention will always be considered negligence and trigger liability for the resulting harm. However, the chapter shows that it should not be the case. After providing an overview of lapse defenses in prevailing law, the chapter examines the openness of liability law to the lapse defense and some activities that substitute unavoidable harm for lapses. It also explains how a lapse defense is implemented and shows how the lapse defense dampens inefficient substitution and increases collection of supporting information.

Introduction

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Cooter ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Cost

This book examines how the law of torts, contracts, and restitution can be improved by showing how private law reduces the cost of accidents, lubricates bargains, and encourages unrequested benefits. It considers the two pervasive rules of tort law that provide incentives for actors to reduce accident costs: strict liability and negligence. It also explains how contract law achieves effiency through the remedy of damages and how restitution law allows benefactors to recover gains that their beneficiaries wrongfully obtained from them. The book makes three central claims: misalignments in tort law should be removed; in contract law, promisee's incentives should be improved; and the law should recognize some right of compensation for those who produce unrequested benefits. Each claim is based on the desire to reform private law and to make it more effective in promoting social welfare.

17. Liability for Animals

2019 ◽  
pp. 510-527
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Social Concern ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Rules

Liability for Animals raises further questions about the role, and future, of strict liability in the context of the law of tort. This chapter examines the special rules of strict liability under the Animals Act 1971, including those concerning liability for straying livestock, liability for ‘dangerous animals’, and liability for dogs. This is followed by discussions of defences, remoteness of damage and strict liability, and liability for dogs. The wording of the Animals Act 1971 is notoriously complex, and the law in this area is, for this reason, the object of must frustration for courts, and tort law students, alike. Even so, the law governing liability of animals concerns matters of social concern and, for the time-being at least, it seems that the Act is here to stay.

The Concept of Fault of the Tortfeasor in Estonian Tort Law: A Comparative Perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janno Lahe
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
European Model ◽  
Common Frame Of Reference

The fault of the wrongdoer is one of the preconditions for general tort liability. Nowadays, fault-based liability and strict liability are two equally important forms of liability that are not polar opposites but, rather, complement one another. This article focuses on the meaning of the fault of a tortfeasor. It considers the notion of fault in two European model rules (the Draft Common Frame of Reference and the Principles of European Tort Law), in the Estonian Law of Obligations Act, and also makes reference to German, French, English, and Russian tort law. We shall begin with a comparative discussion of the questions of general liability based on fault, fault capacity, various forms of fault, the burden of proving fault, and the importance of differentiating those forms of fault. Thereafter, we will treat the issues of fault in the context of liability for torts committed by another person and, also, borderline issues between fault-based liability and strict liability. This analysis seeks to offer the reader a basis for determining whether the regulations of Estonian tort law are justified or whether amendments should be considered within such a comparative-law framework.

Tort Law and Mass Transportation Accidents: A French-German View on Legal Challenges in Times of Market Deregulation

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-169
Author(s):  
Jonas Knetsch
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
German Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Rail Transport ◽  
Mass Transportation ◽  
Market Opening ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Market Liberalisation

Abstract The liberalisation of the coach, air and rail transport market sheds new light on a relatively unexplored field of comparative tort law: the rules governing the liability of transportation companies for accidents involving third parties. Through an assessment of recent developments under French and German Law, this article reflects on the emerging trends of those tort rules, induced or highlighted by the market opening process. The existing strict liability regimes for railway and coach carriers, already subject to a significant tightening process, raise new questions as to the exact circle of persons liable for injuries, since the market liberalisation goes hand in hand with the unbundling of infrastructure and operations.

17. Nuisance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public

This chapter examines the provisions of tort law concerning private and public nuisance. It explains that the tort of private nuisance protects rights in the use of land, rights in the enjoyment of land, and rights in land itself so as to protect against physical damage to land. It highlights the difficulty in establishing whether private nuisance constitutes a tort of strict liability. This chapter also discusses the elements of public nuisance, which again is a difficult tort to analyse.

Comparative Tort Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 993-1030
Author(s):  
Gerhard Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Tort System ◽  
The Law ◽  
Scope Of Protection

Tort law has always been one of the major areas of comparative law. Whereas the law of property, even today, remains on the outskirts of comparative learning, the law of extra-contractual liability has attracted much interest from comparative law scholars. This article considers general clauses versus a variety of individual torts, the scope of protection, the liability for fault, strict liability, and tort law and insurance. It also discusses the choice between the tort system and no-fault insurance schemes. Finally, it addresses the challenges raised by digitalization. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the solutions offered, the principles and the commentaries thereon certainly provide a valuable starting point for further scholarly efforts and critical discussion.

What Mistake Of Law Just Might Be

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-417
Author(s):  
Ahson T. Azmat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Safe Harbor ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Legal Moralism ◽  
Moral Content ◽  
Traditional Account ◽  
Insurance Effect ◽  
The Law ◽  
Negligence Rule

This Article examines and evaluates a distinctive, increasingly popular account of the Mistake of Law doctrine. The doctrine, deeply ingrained in American criminal law, is at the same time notoriously unclear in its scope, content, and application. A growing number of legal theorists have criticized the traditional interpretation of the doctrine; legal moralists in particular have argued that this account is conceptually confused. Because the doctrine’s use of a strict liability punishment regime does not incentivize individuals to learn the law as well as a negligence regime might, legal moralists argue that the doctrine cannot be explained by a desire to incentivize legal knowledge. In evaluating this argument, the Article defends the traditional account, often identified with the liberal positivism of Justice Holmes. The Article advances three main arguments. First, legal moralism’s claim that a negligence standard is more effective than a strict liability standard in incentivizing individuals to learn the law is false: the safe harbor provision of a negligence rule acts as an insurance effect, disincentivizing individuals to learn the law. Second, legal moralism assumes that the moral content of the criminal law is determinate, and that agents have perfectly rational, objective motivational sets. These are illicit assumptions that result in a flawed argument. Finally, the Article contends that legal moralism misinterprets the structural core of the traditional account: properly understood, the Mistake of Law doctrine employs a negligence–strict liability hybrid, and is thus more sophisticated than legal moralists realize. The Article concludes that, contrary to what a surprising number of criminal law theorists have come to accept, legal moralism fails to make a plausible case against the traditional account of the Mistake of Law doctrine.

scholarly journals Liability from the use of medical artificial intelligence: a comparative study of English and Taiwanese tort laws

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1294
Author(s):  
Dennis W. K. Khong ◽  
Wan-Ju Yeh
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Suitable Alternative ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Safety Regulations ◽  
Advisory Systems ◽  
Negligence Rule

Background: Modern artificial intelligence applications are appearing in healthcare and medical practices. Artificial intelligence is used both in medical research and on patients via medical devices. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare English and Taiwanese tort laws in relation to medical artificial intelligence. Methods: The methodologies employed are legal doctrinal analysis and comparative law analysis. Results: The investigation finds that English tort law treats wrong diagnostic or wrong advice as negligent misstatement, and mishaps due to devices as a physical tort under the negligence rule. Negligent misstatement may occur in diagnosis or advisory systems, while a negligent act may occur in products used in the treatment of the patient. Product liability under English common law applies the same rule as negligence. In Taiwan, the general principles of tort law in Taiwan’s Civil Code for misstatement and negligent action apply, whereas the Consumer Protection Act provides for additional rules on product liability of traders. Conclusions: Safety regulations may be a suitable alternative to tort liability as a means to ensure the safety of medical artificial intelligence systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document