scholarly journals Apportionment of damages for contributory negligence: a fixed or discretionary approach?

Legal Studies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Important Conclusion ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Common

In most of the common-law world, legislation provides for damages to be apportioned where the claimant is guilty of contributory negligence. This legislation gives judges considerable latitude to determine the extent to which damages should be diminished for contributory negligence. It imposes what will be called a system of ‘discretionary apportionment’. This paper draws attention to the fact that, although most common-law jurisdictions are, by virtue of their apportionment legislation, in the thrall of the paradigm of discretionary apportionment, there are many, varied departures from this paradigm. This paper classifies these departures (which will be called ‘fixed apportionment rules’), emphasises that they conflict with the apportionment legislation and considers how the conflicts ought to be resolved. An important conclusion reached is that it can plausibly be argued that the landmark decision in Froom v Butcher, at least as it has been understood in subsequent cases, was decided per incuriam. Froom sits uncomfortably with the apportionment legislation. Attention is then turned to the arguments for and against a discretionary system of apportionment as opposed to a system that incorporates more fixed apportionment rules. It is contended that much stands to be gained from introducing more fixed apportionment rules.

to read the accounts and, had he done so, he would probably have discovered the extent of the defendant’s misrepresentation. It was held, nonetheless, that the plaintiff had relied on the false statement and was therefore entitled to rescission of the contract. If Redgrave v Hurd was decided today, it might be necessary to reconsider whether the court was correct in reaching this conclusion. It is clear that the common law counterpart of a misrepresentation, namely the negligent misstatement, requires reasonableness of reliance. At the very least, this issue should be ‘centre stage’ today. How would it be resolved? Policy dictates that if the misrepresentation is fraudulent an opportunity of inspection (spurned or taken) should not bar reliance on the misrepresentation. To hold otherwise would be a green light for the more effective ‘con artist’! If, on the other hand, the misrepresentation is wholly innocent (particularly if greater expertise resides in the representee) reliance may not be reasonable. As regards negligent misrepresentation, the policy to be adopted is not clear; perhaps the answer lies in the respective skill and knowledge of the parties, particularly as it has now been recognised that at least for the purposes of an action under s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, apportionment of damages for contributory negligence is a possibility.

1995 ◽  
pp. 233-233
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Green Light ◽  
The Other ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Common ◽  
Con Artist

Is Style of Reasoning a Fundamental Difference Between the Common Law and the Civil Law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-290
Author(s):  
Colm Peter McGrath ◽  
◽  
Helmut Koziol ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
The Common

Rediscovering Blackstone: wpływ Williama Blackstone’a na rozwój amerykańskiej nauki prawa w recepcji Alberta W. Alschulera

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-185
Author(s):  
Edyta Sokalska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law School ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
American Colonies ◽  
Late 18Th Century ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Common

The reception of common law in the United States was stimulated by a very popular and influential treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone, published in the late 18th century. The work of Blackstone strengthened the continued reception of the common law from the American colonies into the constituent states. Because of the large measure of sovereignty of the states, common law had not exactly developed in the same way in every state. Despite the fact that a single common law was originally exported from England to America, a great variety of factors had led to the development of different common law rules in different states. Albert W. Alschuler from University of Chicago Law School is one of the contemporary American professors of law. The part of his works can be assumed as academic historical-legal narrations, especially those concerning Blackstone: Rediscovering Blackstone and Sir William Blackstone and the Shaping of American Law. Alschuler argues that Blackstone’s Commentaries inspired the evolution of American and British law. He introduces not only the profile of William Blackstone, but also examines to which extent the concepts of Blackstone have become the basis for the development of the American legal thought.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document