Academic literature on the topic 'Liability (contractual, in tort, strict, for negligence)'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Liability (contractual, in tort, strict, for negligence).'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Liability (contractual, in tort, strict, for negligence)"
1
MacCourt, Duncan, and Joseph Bernstein. "Medical Error Reduction and Tort Reform through Private, Contractually-Based Quality Medicine Societies." American Journal of Law & Medicine 35, no. 4 (2009): 505–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009885880903500402.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe current medical malpractice system is broken. Many patients injured by malpractice are not compensated, whereas some patients who recover in tort have not suffered medical negligence; furthermore, the system's failures demoralize patients and physicians. But most importantly, the system perpetuates medical error because the adversarial nature of litigation induces a so-called “Culture of Silence” in physicians eager to shield themselves from liability. This silence leads to the pointless repetition of error, as the open discussion and analysis of the root causes of medical mistakes does not take place as fully as it should. In 1993, President Clinton's Task Force on National Health Care Reform considered a solution characterized by Enterprise Medical Liability (EML), Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), some limits on recovery for non-pecuniary damages (Caps), and offsets for collateral source recovery. Yet this list of ingredients did not include a strategy to surmount the difficulties associated with each element. Specifically, EML might be efficient, but none of the enterprises contemplated to assume responsibility, i.e., hospitals and payers, control physician behavior enough so that it would be fair to foist liability on them. Likewise, although ADR might be efficient, it will be resisted by individual litigants who perceive themselves as harmed by it. Finally, while limitations on collateral source recovery and damages might effectively reduce costs, patients and trial lawyers likely would not accept them without recompense. The task force also did not place error reduction at the center of malpractice tort reform—a logical and strategic error, in our view.In response, we propose a new system that employs the ingredients suggested by the task force but also addresses the problems with each. We also explicitly consider steps to rebuff the Culture of Silence and promote error reduction. We assert that patients would be better off with a system where physicians cede their implicit “right to remain silent,” even if some injured patients will receive less than they do today. Likewise, physicians will be happier with a system that avoids blame—even if this system placed strict requirements for high quality care and disclosure of error. We therefore conceive of de facto trade between patients and physicians, a Pareto improvement, taking form via the establishment of “Societies of Quality Medicine.” Physicians working within these societies would consent to onerous processes for disclosing, rectifying and preventing medical error. Patients would in turn contractually agree to assert their claims in arbitration and with limits on recovery. The role of plaintiffs' lawyers would be unchanged, but due to increased disclosure, discovery costs would diminish and the likelihood of prevailing will more than triple.This article examines the legal and policy issues surrounding the establishment of Societies of Quality Medicine, particularly the issues of contracting over liability, and outlines a means of overcoming the theoretical and practical difficulties with enterprise liability, alternative dispute resolution and the imposition of limits on recovery for non-pecuniary damages. We aim to build a welfare enhancing system that rebuffs the culture of silence and promotes error reduction, a system that is at the same time legally sound, fiscally prudent and politically possible.
2
Hunter, Jr Richard J., Henry J. Amoroso, and John H. Shannon. "A Managerial Guide to Products Liability: A Primer on the Law in the United States—PART II A Focus on Theories of Recovery." International Journal of Learning and Development 2, no. 3 (2012): 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v2i3.1777.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In Part II, the authors build on Part I of this study and here focus on the theories implicit in a product liability claim: negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, and warranty—with a focus on their inherent weaknesses—leading to the creation of the now preferred theory of strict liability in tort. The context of Part II is on the common cases that provided the theoretical basis for the underlying theories, as well as to the development of strict liability. Key words: Theories of liability, negligence, warranty, fraud, strict liability
3
Mascaro, Marisa L. "Preconception Tort Liability: Recognizing a Strict Liability Cause of Action for DES Grandchildren." American Journal of Law & Medicine 17, no. 4 (1991): 435–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0098858800006560.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractOver the past decade more than 1,000 "DES daughters" have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of DES, alleging that their in utero exposure to the drug caused various reproductive tract abnormalities, including cancer. Plaintiffs now allege that their grandmothers' use of DES during pregnancy caused genetic damage leading to cancer in third generations. This Note addresses the validity of preconception tort liability in the context of third-generation DES cases. Plaintiffs in preconception tort liability cases have sought recovery under both negligence and strict liability causes of action. Courts should recognize the validity of preconception tort liability and allow a strict liability cause of action in third-generation cases.
4
Orchard, Maria. "Liability in negligence of the mentally ill." Common Law World Review 45, no. 4 (2016): 366–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473779516673932.
Full textAbstract:
An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objective standard of a reasonable person and does not take into account a defendant’s personal characteristics. In Dunnage v Randall, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a person’s mental illness should be considered when defining the appropriate standard of care. The court held that the deceased, an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who set himself on fire, was subject to the objective standard, breached his duty by failing to act with reasonable care and was therefore liable for the burns his nephew sustained while attempting to prevent the incident. The court further found that a defendant can only escape liability for negligently caused injury if their mental illness entirely eliminates responsibility, thus articulating a strict approach towards the liability in tort of persons suffering from mental illness. As this comment will discuss, the Dunnage decision is a handy illustration of the basic tenets of the tort of negligence, revealing the policy considerations at play and questioning the underlying rationale of the tort law regime.
5
Keating, Gregory C. "Products Liability As Enterprise Liability." Journal of Tort Law 10, no. 1 (2017): 41–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2017-0009.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn the American legal academy, the prevailing wisdom about the rise of modern products liability law is framed by a debate which took place more than thirty years ago. George Priest’s brilliant 1985 paper The Invention of Enterprise Liability, asserted that modern American products liability law in its formative moment was enterprise liability incarnate, but condemned this commitment as itself a profound defect in products liability law. With rhetoric worthy of a Biblical Jeremiad, Priest argued that the “unavoidable implication of the three presuppositions of [enterprise liability] is absolute liability. The presuppositions themselves do not incorporate any conceptual limit to manufacturer liability.” Priest’s work was both immensely influential and sharply contested. Gary Schwartz, writing independently at first, argued that products liability law was really fault liability all along. According to Schwartz, the “vitality of negligence” was the driving force behind the expansion of tort liability over the course of the 20th century. Negligence conceptions lurked beneath product liability law’s surface embrace of strict liability. Or so Schwartz argued. Product defect liability was strict liability in name, but the risk-utility test of product defectiveness was in fact an aggressive application of negligence criteria.
6
Shavell, Steven. "The Mistaken Restriction of Strict Liability to Uncommon Activities." Journal of Legal Analysis 10 (2018): 1–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jla/lay004.
Full textAbstract:
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.
7
Gifford, Donald G. "Technological Triggers to Tort Revolutions: Steam Locomotives, Autonomous Vehicles, and Accident Compensation." Journal of Tort Law 11, no. 1 (2018): 71–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2017-0029.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractWaves of technological change explain the most important transformations of American tort law. In this Article, I begin by examining historical instances of this linkage. Following the Industrial Revolution, for example, machines, no longer humans and animals, powered production. With greater force, locomotives and other machines inflicted far more severe injuries. These dramatic technological changes prompted the replacement of the preexisting strict liability tort standard with the negligence regime. Similarly, later technological changes caused the enactment of workers’ compensation statutes, the implementation of automobile no-fault systems in some states and routinized automobile settlement practices in others that resemble a no-fault system, and the adoption of “strict” products liability. From this history, I derive a model explaining how technological innovation alters (1) the frequency of personal injuries, (2) the severity of such injuries, (3) the difficulty of proving claims, and (4) the new technology’s social utility. These four factors together determine the choice among three liability standards: strict liability, negligence, and no-fault liability with limited damages. I then apply this model to the looming technological revolution in which autonomous vehicles, robots, and other Artificial Intelligence machines will replace human decision-making as well as human force. I conclude that the liability system governing autonomous vehicles is likely to be one similar to the workers’ compensation system in which the victim is relieved of the requirement of proving which party acted tortiously and caused the accident.
8
Grossman, Margaret Rosso. "Genetically Modified Crops in the United States: Federal Regulation and State Tort Liability." Environmental Law Review 5, no. 2 (2003): 86–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146145290300500202.
Full textAbstract:
This article first discusses some benefits and risks of agricultural crops developed through biotechnology and then outlines the complex US regulatory scheme for genetically modified crops. The article then analyses nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability as possible tort law remedies for damage caused by these crops.
9
Rajapakse, Pelma Jacinth. "Contamination of Food and Drinks: Product Liability in Australia." Deakin Law Review 21, no. 1 (2018): 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.21153/dlr2016vol21no1art718.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the Australian law determining liability of manufacturers and retailers for injury or death allegedly caused by food and drink products which were spoiled, contaminated, or otherwise in a deleterious condition. Product liability and the issue of negligence associated with consumption of foods or drinks deemed as contaminated form the key points of discussion in this article. The liability of manufacturers, processors, wholesalers and retailers are explored with reference to elements of negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, misrepresentation, and strict liability in tort. Australian case law as it pertains to duty of care, breach, causation, and damage has been established and there are consumer protection and product safety laws at both state and federal levels that provide for those affected by contamination/harmful condition of food and drink products. This article explores examples of negligence as the basis of manufacturer’s, processor’s and retailer’s liability in tort (common law and Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)) as well as liability under the federal and state legislation such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the Food Act 2006 (Qld) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code). The various defences of contributory negligence of consumers, and obvious risk of injury suffered, as well as those established by manufacturers/retailers in the relevant proceedings are used to show the complexity of this issue. The article concludes with recommendations for consumers and businesses to avoid the risk of food contamination and to maintain food safety.
10
Fruchter, Joshua. "Doctors On Trial: A Comparison of American and Jewish Legal Approaches to Medical Malpractice." American Journal of Law & Medicine 19, no. 4 (1993): 453–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0098858800010133.
Full textAbstract:
The recent and continual call for tort reform has many scholars proposing alternatives to current U.S. medical malpractice law. Most commentators limit their discussions to variations of the two Anglo Saxon theories of liability — negligence and strict liability. Little has been written examining the legal treatment of medical malpractice in other cultures. This article compares and contrasts Jewish and American medical malpractice law, examining both the contemporary and ancient sources of the law.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Liability (contractual, in tort, strict, for negligence)"
1
Ariaeipour, Ali. "La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux en droit des affaires internationales et comparé (droit européen, droit français et droit iranien)." Thesis, Lyon 3, 2012. http://www.theses.fr/2012LYO30018.
Full textAbstract:
Responsabilité du fait du produit c’est le nom, donné à un domaine de droit concernant la responsabilité des personnes qui s’occupent à fabriquer et vendre ou distribuer par d’autres moyens des produits pour les différents sorts des dommages causés aux consommateurs et même aux tierces personnes par les défauts de sécurité de ces produits. Cette responsabilité est une responsabilité sans faute qui va au-delà distinction traditionnelle entre la responsabilité contractuelle ou extra-contractuelle. Il existe différents modèles de la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux dans le monde. Parmi eux le droit américain et le droit européen de la responsabilité du fait des produits sont particulièrement significatifs. Aux Etats-Unis la section 402A de la seconde restatement of torts déterminait le régime de la responsabilité du fait des produits. En 1998 l’institut de droit américain a publié la troisième restatement of torts sous le nom de la responsabilité du fait des produits, ce qui est censé de remplacer la section 402A de la seconde restatement of torts. En Europe, la directive communautaire numéro (85/374/CEE) du conseil du 25 juillet 1985 relative au rapprochement des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives des États membres en matière de responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux constitue le droit spécial des états membres en matière de la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux. Cette directive a été transposée en droit français par la loi du 19 mai 1998 sous la forme des articles 1386-1 à 1386-18 du code civil français. La faute constitue la seule base légale de la responsabilité civile des vendeurs et des fabricants des produits défectueux en droit iranien. Pour résoudre les conflits de lois et des juridictions qui résultent de l’exportation de produits au niveau international on peut mettre œuvre les conventions et les règlements internationales qui ont été élaborées en la matière ainsi que le droit commun des conflits des lois et des juridictions des pays<br>Products liability is the name of a field of law concerning the liability of persons who are engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sell or distribute a defective product for harm to persons or property caused by the defect. They are strictly liable. Their liability is a kind of liability which goes beyond the traditional distinction between the contractual and tortious liability. The United-States of America and European Union have the most developed products liability laws in the world. In the United-States the American Law Institute memorialized precedential rule of strict products liability in tort in §402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, and officially promulgated it in 1965. In 1992, the American Law Institute began working on a new Restatement (Third) of Torts on the specific topic of products liability law, approving the new Restatement in 1997 and publishing it in 1998 as The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. In Europe, Council Directive of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (85/374/EEC) constitutes specific law of products liability of European Union member states. This directive has been transposed in French law by 19 May 1998 act and formed articles 1386-1 to 1386-18 of civil code. Fault is the only legal basis of Iranian products liability law. For solving conflicts of laws and jurisdictions which arise from international trade of products and determining the applicable law and competent jurisdiction we can implement international conventions and regulations which have been elaborated on this subject as well as traditional rules of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions of the countries
2
Maslyannikov, Lev. "Skadebegränsningsprincipen : – den skadelidandes skyldighet att begränsa sin skada." Thesis, Linköpings universitet, Affärsrätt, 2017. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-137307.
Full textAbstract:
Den skadeståndsrättsliga principen om den skadelidandes skyldighet att begränsa sin skada ärväl känd och vedertagen i svensk rätt. Principen åberopas ofta som invändning iskadeståndstvister av alla slag, och har därmed stor praktisk betydelse. Principens köprättsligaoch försäkringsrättsliga motsvarigheter är generöst behandlade i doktrinen. På denskadeståndsrättsliga sidan förhåller det sig annorlunda – det här är första gången som ämnetblir tillägnat ett eget arbete i Sverige. Det finns många rättsfall där skadebegränsningsskyldigheten aktualiseras, men på grund avdomskälens utformning är rättsfallens värde som vägledning begränsat. Jag anser emellertid attuppmärksamheten inte bör överfokuseras på dessa. Intar man ett framåtblickande perspektiv,finns det gott om material och idéer att hämta från den övriga civilrätten, från rättsekonominoch – inte minst – från utlandet. Arbetets strukturella och metodologiska ramverk är utformatså, att största möjliga nytta kan dras av främmande källor utan att en djupgående (och oftastointressant) komparativ utredning av dessa källor behöver göras. Det huvudsakliga syftet med undersökningen var att definiera skadebegränsningsprincipensansvarsgräns. Med hänsyn till framställningen omfattning, hade det inte varit möjligt att göragrundliga utredningar av enskilda delproblem. Istället är arbetet fokuserat på att utrönaallmängiltiga riktlinjer, tankemönster och ledtrådar, dels för skadebegränsningsbedömningen isig, och dels för den tänkbara rättsutvecklingen. Ett flertal sådana riktlinjer har kunnatdefinieras, något utspridda över principens tillämpningsområde, och ibland även i sammanhangdär det inte är uppenbart att det är skadebegränsningshänsyn som styr. Samtidigt har åtskilligasystemiska problem uppdagats såväl i principens tillämpning som i den underliggandenormbildningen. Jag har ödmjukt lagt fram några lösningsförslag, med ändamålet att främja enmer rättssäker tillämpning av principen, dels på grundval av gällande rätt, och dels på grundvalav den tänkbara rättsutvecklingen på området.<br>The doctrine of avoidable loss is a generally recognized principle in Swedish law. The doctrine is often invoked in damage claim disputes of all kinds, and is therefore important in practice. There is plenty of legal literature where the doctrine is treated in the context of sales law and insurance law. On the tort law side, however, there is nothing – this is the first dedicated work on the subject in Sweden. There are many tort cases where the question of avoidable loss is actualized, but due to the way the courts articulate the grounds for their rulings, the cases provide little guidance for the future, and therefore have little value as precedent. This is not necessarily an obstacle to the study. On the contrary, when looking outwards, I have found a wealth of ideas and study material in other areas of civil law, in law and economics, and in foreign law. The structural and methodological framework of the thesis was designed to allow for extraction of material from foreign sources without needing to conduct a thorough (and often uninteresting) comparative study. The main purpose of the investigation was to define the boundaries of the claimant’s liability as imposed by the doctrine. Considering the limited scope of the thesis, it would not have been possible to deconstruct the subject into details and conduct thorough investigations of those. Instead, the work was focused on determining general guidelines, thought patterns and clues; both de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Multiple such guidelines could be defined in various contexts where the doctrine is applied, but also, interestingly, in certain contexts where it is not obvious that considerations of avoidable loss are decisive. Multiple systemic issues have also been found, both in the application of the doctrine and in the underlying norms. I have humbly put forward several suggestions on how these issues could be alleviated to promote legal certainty in the doctrine’s application, both today and in the future.
3
Lagoutte, Julien. "Les conditions de la responsabilité en droit privé : éléments pour une théorie générale de la responsabilité juridique." Thesis, Bordeaux 4, 2012. http://www.theses.fr/2012BOR40032.
Full textAbstract:
Alors que l’on enseigne classiquement la distinction radicale du droit pénal et de la responsabilité civile, une étude approfondie du droit positif révèle une tendance générale et profonde à la confusion des deux disciplines. Face à ce paradoxe, le juriste s’interroge : comment articuler le droit civil et le droit pénal de la responsabilité ? Pour y répondre, cette thèse suggère d’abandonner l’approche traditionnelle de la matière, consistant à la tenir pour une simple catégorie de classement des différentes branches, civile et pénale, du droit de la responsabilité. La responsabilité juridique est présentée comme une institution autonome et générale organisant la réaction du système à la perturbation anormale de l’équilibre social. Quant au droit de la responsabilité civile et au droit criminel, ils ne sont plus conçus que comme les applications techniques de cette institution en droit positif.Sur le fondement de cette approche renouvelée et par le prisme de l’étude des conditions de la responsabilité en droit privé, la thèse propose un ordonnancement technique et rationnel du droit pénal et de la responsabilité civile susceptible de fournir les principes directeurs d’une véritable théorie générale de la responsabilité juridique. En tant qu’institution générale, celle-ci engendre à la fois un concept de responsabilité, composé des exigences de dégradation d’un intérêt juridiquement protégé, d’anormalité et de causalité juridique et qui fonde la convergence du droit pénal et du droit civil, et un système de responsabilité, qui en commande les divergences et pousse le premier vers la protection de l’intérêt général et le second vers celle des victimes<br>While the radical distinction between criminal law and civil liability is classically taught, a thorough survey of positive law reveals a general and profound trend towards a confusion of these two disciplines. Faced with this paradox, the jurist wonders : how to articulate the civil and criminal laws of responsibility ? To answer this question, the thesis suggests abandoning the traditional approach of the subject, which consists in treating it as a mere category of classification of the different branches, civil and criminal, of responsibility/liability. Legal responsibility is presented as an autonomous and general institution organizing the response from the system to abnormal disturbance of social equilibrium. Civil liability law and criminal law are, as far as they are concerned, henceforth conceived as the mere technical applications of this institution in positive law.On the basis of this new approach and through the prism of the study of liability conditions in private law, the thesis proposes a technical and rational organization of criminal law and civil liability that may provide the guiding principles of a real general theory of legal responsibility. As a general institution, it gives not only a concept of responsibility, requiring degradation of a legally protected interest, abnormality and legal causation, and establishing the convergence of criminal law and civil law, but also a system of responsibility, determining the divergences of them and steering the first towards the protection of general interest and the second towards the protection of victims
4
Sztefek, Martin. "Ekonomická analýza deliktního práva." Doctoral thesis, 2020. http://www.nusl.cz/ntk/nusl-436312.
Full textAbstract:
The Economic Analysis of Tort Law Abstract In the presented thesis I discuss the economic analysis of tort law. The economic analysis of law can be described as the application of economic theory - primarily microeconomics and the basic concepts of welfare economics - to examine the formation, structure, processes, and economic impact of law and legal institutions. The economic analysis of tort law can help understand the impact of tort liability on individuals' behavior, why some areas of human activity are governed by negligence or strict liability, or why, in some cases, the amout of damages is limited. First two chapters describe the economic approach to law as such, they serve as an introduction into this field of study and present the most important methodological approaches. In the first chapter, I also discuss the basic tendencies that have shaped the economic analysis of law throughout its development. Second chapter then discusses some of the fundamental concepts of the economic analysis of law, namely the assumption of rational action, the concept of transaction costs, the efficiency criterion, the importance of the Coase theorem, and the distinction between property rules and liability rules. Following the examination of the concept of economic efficiency, an alternative approach based on the...
Books on the topic "Liability (contractual, in tort, strict, for negligence)"
1
Witting, Christian. Street on Torts. 16th ed. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198865506.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
Street on Torts provides a wide-ranging overview, and a clear and accurate explanation of tort law. The book consists of nine parts. Part I provides an introduction to the subject, including examination of protected interests in tort and the history of this branch of law beginning with the ancient trespass torts. Part II looks at negligent infringements of the person, property and financial interests, as well as examining the liability in negligence of public authorities. Part III looks at intentional invasions of interests in the person and property. Part IV looks at misrepresentation-based and general economic torts. Part V is about torts of strict or stricter liability (that is, where fault plays either no part or a lesser part in liability decisions) and includes consideration of nuisance and product liability. Part VI considers interests in reputation (ie defamation). Part VII is about actions in privacy. Part VIII looks at the misuse of process and public powers. The final part, Part IX, is about vicarious liability, parties, and remedies.
2
Witting, Christian. Street on Torts. Oxford University Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198700944.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
Street on Torts provides a wide-ranging overview, and a clear and accurate explanation of tort law. The book consists of nine parts. Part I provides an introduction to the subject. Part II looks at negligent invasions of interests in the person, property and financial interests as well as examining the liability in negligence of public authorities. Part III looks at intentional invasions of protected interest. The next part looks at interference with economic and intellectual property interests. Part V is about torts and strict or stricter liability. Part VI considers interests in reputation (i.e. defamation). The next part is about the misuse of private information. The part that follows looks at the misuse of process and public powers. The final part, Part IX, is about parties and remedies.
3
Witting, Christian. Street on Torts. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198811169.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
Street on Torts provides a wide-ranging overview, and a clear and accurate explanation of tort law. The book consists of nine parts. Part I provides an introduction to the subject. Part II looks at negligent invasions of interests in the person, property and financial assets as well as examining the liability in negligence of public authorities. Part III looks at intentional invasions of interests in the person and property. Part IV looks at misrepresentation-based and economic torts. Part V is about torts of strict or stricter liability (that is, where fault plays either no part or a lesser part in liability decisions) and includes consideration of nuisance and product liability. Part VI considers interests in reputation (ie defamation). Part VII is about actions in privacy. Part VIII looks at the misuse of process and public powers. The final part, Part IX, is about parties and remedies.
Book chapters on the topic "Liability (contractual, in tort, strict, for negligence)"
1
Harlow, Carol. "France and the United Kingdom." In Tort Liability of Public Authorities in European Laws. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867555.003.0016.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter compares the respective answers of the English and French systems of administrative liability within a wider comparative study that focuses on outcomes. The chapter is in three parts. It first looks briefly at the constitutional and cultural framework in which the rules operate. In France, we find a separate system of administrative courts which handle all questions relating to the administration, including liability, and which have built a sophisticated public law system of non-contractual liability. In the UK, where all questions of liability go to the ‘ordinary’ civil courts, the law is uncodified, and there are gaps in the liability principles. The chapter then looks at basic principles. In France, where the dominant principle is faute de service public, the courts also acknowledge a no-fault principle. In the UK, the strongest form of redress is strict liability for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, but the dominant principle is negligence, and a public authority must owe a duty of care to the claimant to be held liable. In the final part, the chapter answers specific liability questions, making the point that it is often hard to get redress for economic loss. Claimants often fail to get redress for wrongful failures to grant licences or exercise a discretion or statutory power.
2
Schäfer, Hans-Bernd, and Frank Müller-Langer. "Strict liability versus negligence." In Tort Law and Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781848447301.00008.
Full text
3
"3. Strict Liability versus Negligence." In The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Harvard University Press, 1987. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674864030.c3.
Full text
4
Werro, Franz, and Erdem Büyüksagis. "The bounds between negligence and strict liability." In Comparative Tort Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781789905984.00017.
Full text
5
Steele, Jenny. "11. Rylands v Fletcher and Strict Liability." In Tort Law. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198768807.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter analyses the rule in Rylands v Fletcher on liability for damage done by the escape of dangerous things accumulated on one’s land, regardless of fault. It considers the problem in overlap between negligence and strict liability, and how the tort of negligence can impose liability in situations far removed from cases of individual fault, including the situations covered by Rylands v Fletcher. After providing an overview of the case of Rylands v Fletcher and the origins and elements of the rule, the chapter looks at the rule and its categorization and boundaries today, paying particular attention to two major English cases that treat Rylands as an aspect of nuisance: Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco v Stockport MBC. Finally, it examines the Australian High Court’s decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd.
6
Steele, Jenny. "15. Product Liability." In Tort Law. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198768807.003.0015.
Full textAbstract:
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter examines the statutory strict liability for damage arising from defective products as set out in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the EEC Directive on Product Liability. It begins by considering the apportionment of risks associated with products and the development risks defence before turning to similarities between statutory liability and common law liabilities based on negligence and on strict liability. It then looks at the reasons why it is misleading to consider ‘product liability’ in isolation and the concept of defectiveness.
7
Horsey, Kirsty, and Erika Rackley. "11. Product liability." In Casebook on Tort Law. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780192893659.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter deals with damage caused by defective products. It considers two separate legal regimes. The first is the ordinary law of negligence, and the second is the system of strict liability introduced by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, as required by a European Directive (85/374/EEC). The latter is limited to personal injuries and to damage to private property, so there are still many cases where a claimant has to rely on negligence. Also, the Act applies only to certain kinds of defendants (‘producers’), and a claimant will need to use negligence if, for example, he is injured by a defectively repaired product. One important point is that both systems apply only to damage to goods other than the defective product and not to damage which the defective product causes to itself: that is a matter solely for the law of contract.
8
Robbennolt, Jennifer K., and Valerie P. Hans. "Products Liability." In The Psychology of Tort Law. NYU Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814724941.003.0009.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter takes a closer look at a particular subset of cases in tort law – those involving products liability. The way the law handles manufacturing defects—through strict liability—implicates intuitions about the circumstances under which defendants should be held responsible in the absence of negligence. How decision makers assess design defects involves the attribution of responsibility and negligence, and raises additional psychological issues related to betrayal aversion and cost-benefit analysis. Nuanced assessment of the adequacy of warnings must take into account the human factors related to noticing, reading or otherwise decoding, understanding, and following product warnings. Looking at tort law through the lens of products liability also affords an opportunity to explore the psychology of mass torts and the effects of plaintiffs joining together in groups to make their claims. Because products liability cases almost always involve corporate defendants, this chapter explores the psychology of holding a collective entity responsible for having caused harm.
9
Brennan, Carol. "10. Product liability." In Tort Law Concentrate. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198803904.003.0010.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the law on product liability. Common law product liability is based upon the law of negligence. Beginning with the narrow ratio in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), it further developed the concept of intermediate examination in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936). The relevant statute is the Consumer Protection Act 1987, passed in response to a European Union Directive. This introduces strict liability, when a defective product causes damage. The CPA establishes a hierarchy of possible defendants beginning with the producer. Defences under the CPA include the ‘development risks’ defence to protect scientific and technical innovation. If damage relates to quality or value, the only remedy will be in contract.
10
Brennan, Carol. "10. Product liability." In Tort Law Concentrate. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198840541.003.0010.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the law on product liability. Common law product liability is based upon the law of negligence. Beginning with the narrow ratio in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), it further developed the concept of intermediate examination in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936). The relevant statute is the Consumer Protection Act 1987, passed in response to a European Union Directive. This introduces strict liability, when a defective product causes damage. The CPA establishes a hierarchy of possible defendants beginning with the producer. Defences under the CPA include the ‘development risks’ defence to protect scientific and technical innovation. If damage relates to quality or value, the only remedy will be in contract.