Monday, February 8, 2021
Israel Gilead has posted to SSRN the abstract to his piece Models of Negligence - The Debate in Israel's Supreme Court. The abstract provides:
A model of negligence in common law jurisdictions is a conceptual structure that basically seeks to align the three legal concepts used by courts to administer negligence law with the three substantive elements that constitute, justify and limit negligence liability. The three legal concepts are carelessness, legal causation (assuming factual causation) and duty. The three substantive elements are undesirable conduct, sufficient link between this conduct and harm, and the desirability of liability. Another major task of model of negligence is explain the role and meaning of the foreseeability requirement in each concept and element of liability.
The traditional model of negligence, identified with the sequence duty-breach-causation, is characterized by the double role that is assigns to the duty concept. This concept is aligned both with the element of undesirable conduct (conduct is undesirable only when breaching a pre-existing duty), and with the element of desirable liability (liability is desirable only where policy considerations justify a finding of duty to compensate). Being a servant of two masters, the duty concept is the major source of the confusion and ambiguities that plague negligence law for generations.
On this background the traditional model was challenged in Israel's Supreme Court by a Justice who embraced an alternative model formerly suggested by the author. The essence of this change is to align the duty concept only with the element of desirable liability, severing it from the element of undesirable conduct. That change arguably disperses confusion and ambiguities, and clarifies the roles and meaning of the foreseeability requirement.
This paper explains why the new model is preferable to the traditional model in all relevant aspects. The analysis sheds new light on the notions of proximity, special relations, reliance, assumption of responsibility and prima-facie duty. The analysis also serves as a comparative perspective on fault-based liability in continental Europe jurisdictions.
See the Journal of European Tort Law for the full article.