Thursday, November 17, 2011

Fried on the Limits of Nonconsequentialist Tort Theories

Barbara Fried (Stanford) has posted to SSRN The Limits of a Nonconsequentialist Approach to Torts.  The abstract provides:

The nonconsequentialist revival in tort theory has focused almost exclusively on one issue: showing that the rules governing compensation for ‘wrongful’ acts reflect corrective justice rather than welfarist norms. The literature is either silent on what makes an act wrongful in the first place or suggests criteria that seem indistinguishable from some version of cost/benefit analysis. As a result, cost/benefit analysis is currently the only game in town for determining appropriate standards of conduct for socially useful acts that pose some risk of harm to others (a category that describes almost all noncriminal conduct). This is no small omission, and the failure of nonconsequentialists to acknowledge it or cure it can be traced to a number of recurring problems in the nonconsequentialist tort literature. Chief among them is the tendency to conflate prohibition and compensation, and to treat imposition of risk and imposition of harm as if they were distinct forms of conduct rather than the same conduct viewed from different temporal perspectives.

--CJR

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2011/11/fried-on-the-limits-of-nonconsequentialist-tort-theories.html

Scholarship | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef015437028d7d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fried on the Limits of Nonconsequentialist Tort Theories:

Comments

Post a comment