Upload
diego-alonso-collantes
View
222
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
La importancia de la filosofía en responsabilidad civil
Citation preview
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 1 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineOxfordScholarshipOnline
ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofTortLawDavidG.Owen
Printpublicationdate:1997PrintISBN-13:9780198265795PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:March2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265795.001.0001
ForewordWhyPhilosophyMatterstoTortLawDAVIDG.OWEN
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265795.003.0001
AbstractandKeywords
Thecollectionofessaysinthisbookprovidesanexpansivephilosophicviewoftortlawissuesbymanyofthescholarswhohavehelpeddevelopthedisciplineinitsrecentemergencefromthemistsofacademicobscuritytoitspresentpositionasaneo-quasi-disciplineofitsown.Thephilosophyoftortlawinsomewaysisveryold.Asrevealedinseveraloftheessayshere,philosophicalexaminationoftortlawproblemsisconventionallytracedtoAristotlesdiscussionofcorrectivejusticeinNicomacheanEthicswrittensome2,500yearsago.Then,in1982and1983,acriticalmassdevelopedwhenanumberofscholars,includingJulesColeman,ErnestWeinrib,andGeorgeFletcher,offeredavarietyofdiverseviewsontortlawandphilosophyinlawandphilosophy.Thiswasanimportanteventintheevolutionoftort.
Keywords:philosophy,tortlaw,Aristotle,NicomacheanEthics,JulesColeman,ErnestWeinrib,GeorgeFletcher
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 2 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
I.ABriefIntellectualHistoryofTortLawandPhilosophyThephilosophyoftortlawinsomewaysisveryold.Asrevealedinseveraloftheessayshere,philosophicalexaminationoftortlawproblemsisconventionallytracedtoAristotlesdiscussionofcorrectivejusticeinNicomacheanEthicswrittensome2,500yearsago.Aristotle,however,providedlittlemorethanaskeletaldescriptionofthelawsCorrectivefunctionofrectifyingtortswrongfulinterferenceswiththeholdingsofanotherandasimilarlyskeletaldescriptionofhowthiscorrectivefunctionfitstogetherwiththelawsbroaderfunctionofallocatingasocietysscarceresourcesamongitsmembersaccordingtoprevailingprinciplesofdistributivejustice.Movingforwardintime,onebeginstoseesomefleshinginofAristotlescorrectivejusticeskeleton,first,byThomasAquinasandhismedievalfollowers,andthenbyvariousnaturallawtheoristsoftheEnlightenment,suchasHugoGrotiusandSamuelPufendorf.Lateintheeighteenthcentury,ImmanuelKantexpoundedthepowerfulethicofequalfreedom,whichheconceivedtobethemoralfoundationofrights,justice,andlaw.Explicitlyorimplicitly,Kantsmoralandlegalphilosophyhasbecomeapillarformuchofmoderntort-lawtheory.AlthoughKantsequalfreedomethicaddedsignificantsubstantivecontenttoAristotlescorrective-justicestructure,hiselaborationofthatcontentremainedgeneralandabstract.Insearchingformorespecificcontent,onemaytravelforwardintimeintoAnglo-Americanjurisprudence,whereonemightnextnotethepublicationin1881ofOliverWendellHolmes,Jr.sTheCommonLaw,arguablythefirstmodernefforttounravelfundamentalproblemsofthecommonlaw,includingtortlaw,inbasicphilosophicterms.Butthebridgebetweentortlawandphilosophyremainedthereafterbutlightlytravelledformanydecades.1
(p.2) ModernAnglo-Americanscholarshipontortlawandphilosophywasprecededby,andtoalargeextentemergedinreactionto,importanteconomicefficiencytheoriesoftortliabilityfirstexpoundedinthe1960sandearly1970sbyRonaldCoase,2GuidoCalabresi,3RobertMorris,4andRichardPosner.5Theseimportantforaysintorttheory,whichattemptedtoexplainthedevelopinglawoftortsineconomicterms,laidthefoundationforaproliferationofwritingontheeconomicsoftortlawthatdominatedthetheoreticaltortlawscholarshipinthe1970sandmuchofthefollowingdecade.6Tortlawscholarshipofthistype,whichviewedthelawoftortsthroughtheconsequentialistlensofeconomicanalysis,spurredasharpresponseinthe1970sfromthoseintheacademywhothoughtthatthefoundationsoftortlawrestedmorefirmlyonmoralground.7Thus,in1970,CharlesFriedpublishedhisbook,AnAnatomyofValues,in1972GeorgeFletcherpublishedhisarticle,FairnessandUtilityinTortTheory,8in1973RichardEpsteinpublishedhisfirstarticleonthetopic,ATheoryofStrictLiability,9andJulesColemanin1974beganhislongjourneyinto(p.3) torttheoryscholarshipwithOntheMoralArgumentfortheFaultSystem.10Foranumberofyearsthereafter,whilethelawandeconomicsscholarschurnedoutanincreasinglyelaboratebodyofliterature,thestudyoftortlawandphilosophypercolatedunobtrusively.11
Investigationintothephilosophicalrootsoftortlawmaturedinsophisticationandbegantotakeontheappearanceofadiscipline,albeitanascentone,inthe1980s.Startingthedecade,IzhakEnglardin1980critiquedthetorttheoryliteratureofthepreceding
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 3 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
decadeinTheSystemBuilders:ACriticalAppraisalofModernAmericanTortTheory,12andErnestWeinribenteredthefraywithhisfirsttortlawandphilosophyarticle,TheCaseforaDutytoRescue.13Then,in1982and1983,acriticalmassdevelopedwhenanumberofscholars,includingColeman,14Weinrib,15andFletcher,16offeredavarietyofdiverseviewsontortlawandphilosophyinLawandPhilosophy.17Thiswasanimportanteventintheevolutionoftorttheoryforatleasttworeasons.Forone,itwasthefirstunitedoppositionbyleadingscholarstothetheretoforelargelyunchallengedsupremacyoftheeconomictheoristsutilityandefficiency-basedapproachesthathadbecomeentrenchedasthedominanttheoreticalscholarshipofthetime.Foranother,itpresentedsidebysidetheradicallydifferentconceptionsofcorrectivejusticeofJulesColemanandErnestWeinrib,whosewritingsonthesubjectcametoframeandsignificantlyshapetheevolvingconceptionoftortlawandphilosophyasitisbroadlyunderstoodtoday.Asthe1980s(p.4) progressed,WeinribandColemancontinuedtorefinetheirrespectivemodels,andmoreandmorelegalscholarsjoinedthesearchforphilosophicalilluminationofthelawoftorts.18Andasthedecademovedalong,thephilosophyoftortlawscholarshipincreasinglyevolvedintoexplicit,systematicapplicationsofformalphilosophicprinciplestolegalproblemsofresponsibilityforharm.19
Alsoduringthe1970sand1980s,inthehallsofthephilosophers,anumberofscholarslaidimportantphilosophicgroundworkthatwasindispensabletothelawyersindevelopingmoralconceptionsoftortlaw.Twoespeciallyimportantbookspublishedintheearly1970s,JohnRawlsmonumentalATheoryofJustice20andRobertNozickspowerfulAnarchy,State,andUtopia,21offeredadramaticchallengetoconsequentialistandutilitarianconcepts.Despitetheirsignificantdifferences,thesetwoworkstogetherprovidedavitalinfusionofneo-classicalrights-basedmoraltheoryintothedebateonpoliticaltheory.Andsomephilosophersinthisperiod,notablyJoelFeinberg22andJudithJarvisThomson,23beganquiteexplicitlytoaddresstheissuesofgreatestinteresttotortlawyers,thoseconcerningmoralresponsibilityforharmingothers.24
The1990sdecadehasbeenshapingupasthedecadeofthebooks.Therewerenonedevotedtoadeepandsystematicinquiryintothephilosophyof(p.5) tortlawwhenthepresentvolumewasfirstconceivedin1991.JulesColemanpromptlyremediedthatwithhispublicationin1992ofRisksandWrongs.25There,rejectingconventionalrationalchoiceliberalism,heplacestortlawwithinthebroaderlegalsystemandexplainsitsroleasameansofrectifyingwrongfullosses,notinefficientexchanges.Tortliability,heargues,merelyrectifiesthewrong;itdoesnotrightit.Compensationforatortdoesnotservetolegitimateanunconsented-totaking;rather,itisthevictimsdue.Thus,hearguesthattortpracticeisbestconceivedasrectification-of-wrong-done,notasasubstituteforefficientcontract.Alsoin1992,twoimportantsymposiaontortlawphilosophyappearedSymposiumonRisksandWrongs,26centeringaroundColemansbook,andSymposium:CorrectiveJusticeandFormalismTheCareOneOwesOnesNeighbors.27Thenextyear,1993,witnessedthepublicationofanumberofimportantcollections,includingSymposiumonLegalFormalism,28whichcenteredaroundErnestWeinribswork,acollectionofessaysontorttheoryeditedbyKenCooper-StephensonandElaineGibson,TortTheory29andIzhakEnglardsbook,ThePhilosophyofTortLaw,30inwhichhe
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 4 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
critiquesonceagain(butmorebroadlyanddeeply)recentAnglo-AmericantortlawtheoriesandexaminesaswelltheEuropeanhistoricalrootsoftortphilosophy.31
Withinafewweeksofthepresentvolumegoingtopress,ErnestWeinribhaspublishedhisbook,TheIdeaofPrivateLaw,32inwhichheplacestortlawinthebroadercontextofprivatelaw.Viewingprivatelawfromwithinitself,intermsofitsinternalintelligibility,Weinribarguesthattheconceptualperspectiveofprivatelawembodiesacorrelativityofrightsand(p.6) dutieshighlightingthecentralityofthenotionofcausationofharmandthedistinctionbetweennonfeasanceandmisfeasance.GroundinghisperspectiveoftortlawinAristoteliancorrectivejusticeandKantsphilosophyofright,hearguesthatprivatelawshouldbeviewedasacoherent,self-understandingenterprise.Fromthisperspective,Weinribfurtherexpoundshistheoryoftortlawasanormativeunitintegratingthedoingandsufferingofharmthatisresolvedinbipolarlitigationbetweentheplaintiffanddefendant.
Thisbringsustothepresentvolume.Thecollectionofessayshere,eachwrittenespeciallyforthisvolume,isdesignedtoprovideanexpansivephilosophicviewoftortlawissuesbymanyofthescholarswhohavehelpeddevelopthedisciplineinitsrecentemergencefromthemistsofacademicobscuritytoitspresentpositionasaneo-quasi-disciplineofitsown.PartI,THENATUREANDREALMOFTORTLAWANDPHILOSOPHY,containingessaysbyPeterBirks,JulesColeman,andTonyHonor6,attemptstoprovideastructuralframeworkforunderstandingthenatureoftortlawandthegeneraltypesofproblemsinvolvedinaphilosophicinquiryintothisparticulardomainoflaw.PartII,PRINCIPLESANDVALUESUNDERLYINGTORTLAW,whichincludesessaysbyRichardPosner,GeorgeChristie,JamesGordley,RichardWright,andIzhakEnglard,exploresthevarietyofabstractprinciplesandvaluesthoughtbydifferentscholarstofurnishtortlawwitha.substantive,philosophicfoundationethicsbelievedtoprovideitwithnormativecontent.InPartIII,PHILOSOPHICALPERSPECTIVESONTORTLAWPROBLEMS,theinquiryshiftstothemajortortlawperplexitiesinneedofnormativehelpfromthedomainofphilosophy.Inthefirstsectionhere,ResponsibilityandtheBasisofLiability,JohnFinnis,RichardWright,KenKress,JohnAttanasio,andIinquireintohowphilosophicconceptsofresponsibilityforharmshouldbefittogetherwithoneormoreoftheconventionalgroundsoftortiousliabilitybaseduponintent,negligence,orstrictliability.Thenextsection,ConnectingAgencyandHarm:Risk,CausationandDamage,containsessaysbyStephenPerry,ChristopherSchroeder,TonyHonor6,JeremyWaldron,BruceChapman,andPeterBenson,eachexploringthenatureoftheconnectionsintortlawbetweenagency,risk,andharm.InthefinalsectionofPartIII,VictimResponsibilityforHarm,KennethSimonsswitchestheinquirytotheplaintiffsconduct,focusinguponthenatureandsignificanceofavictimsresponsibilityforcausingaccidentalharm.ClosingoutthevolumeinanAFTERWORD,BernardWilliamsreversestheinquiryoftheotheressaysandaskswhatphilosophersmaylearnfromstudyingthelawoftorts.
(p.7) II.TheNatureandRealmofTortLawandPhilosophyHowlawandphilosophybroadlyfittogetherisalargeandcontroversialtopicthatranges
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 5 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
farbeyondthescopeofthisvolume.Ofinteresthereisthemuchnarrowerquestionofhowtortlawmaybeinformedbytheteachingsandprinciplesofphilosophy.Thelawoftortsconcernstheobligationsofpersonslivinginacrowdedsocietytorespectthesafety,property,andpersonalityoftheirneighbors,bothasanapriorimatterandasadutytocompensateforwrongfullycausedharm,expost.Tortlaw,inotherwords,involvesquestionsofhowpeopleshouldtreatoneanotherandtherulesofproperbehaviorthatsocietyimposesoneachcitizenforavoidingimproperharmtoothers,andfordeterminingwhencompensationforharmisdue.Moralphilosophy(ethics),andtosomeextentpoliticalphilosophy,arethemselvesconcernedwithprinciplesofproperconduct.33Andsobothfields,tortlawandphilosophy,involveasearchfornormsofproperbehaviornormsthatmaybeusedforevaluatingtheproprietyorwrongfulnessofparticularinstancesofharmfulconduct.
TheessaysinPartIframetheinquiryfortheremainderofthevolume.Theissuesconsideredinthispartmaybeviewedasstructural,inthattheyinvolveatonceamicro-tortexaminationoftheinternalstructureofatortwhatitisthatmakesatortatort,andamacro-tortexaminationoftheproperplacementofthelawoftortswithintheexternalstructureofotherlawthelawofproperty,contracts,restitution,andcrimes.Thenatureofatort,itsnecessaryelements,therelationofitsinternalnormstobroadersocialnorms,andtheobjectivesofasystemoftortlawwithinthebroaderlegalsystemarethekindsofissuesinvestigatedinthisopeningpartofthecollection.
InTheConceptofaCivilWrong,PeterBirksbeginstheinquirybyprovidingastructuralanalysisofthenatureofatort,orcivilwrong,exploringwhereitfitswithinthebroaderstructureofthecommonlaw.Fromthisperspective,heexamineshowtheconceptofacivilwrongrelatestoandisdistinguishablefromtheothercommonlawconceptscontract,unjustenrichment,andotherevents.Locatingtortwithinaschemecontainingtheseothercommonlawcategories,aclassificationapproachwhichhefindscoherent,Birksproposesthattortlawbeviewedbroadlytoincludeallappropriateresponsestotortiousbehavior,includingtherestitutionofwrongfulgains.Bysofocusingonhowtortandtheothercommonlawcat-egoriesdifferandoverlap,Birksprovidesinsightsintothenatureofacivilwrongatortwhichhedefinesasthebreachofalegaldutywhichaffects(p.8) theinterestsofanindividualtoadegreewhichthelawregardsassufficienttoallowthatindividualtocomplainonhisorherownaccountratherthanastherepresentativeofsocietyasawhole.Birksexplainstheuniversalrequirementthatthecoreoftortinvolvesabreachoflegalduty(aprimaryobligation)whichgeneratesafurtherdutytocompensatethevictim(asecondaryobligation).Hepostulatesandexploresthenotionthatthecoretortcaseincludesthreeprimaryelements:harm,conduct,andblameworthiness.Heconcludesthatneitherharmnorblameworthinessisessential,leavingonlyconductamountingtoabreachofdutyasthesoleimperativeinthecoretortconcept.Arguingthattheremedialobligationsforbreachofdutyintortarepolicy-based,ratherthanlogicallynecessary,hedistinguishestortfromtheotherthreecommonlawcategories,theremediesforwhicharedictatedbythecausativeeventitself.Findingthatthebroadformalconceptofacivilwrongisweakandabstract,Birksconcludesthat,foracompleteexplanationoftheconceptofacivilwrong,onemustturn
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 6 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
tothepoliciesandvalueslyingbeneaththeprimaryduty,whereprinciplesofeconomicefficiencycompeteforrecognitionwithethicsofliberalautonomyandmoralpaternalism.
In1992,JulesColemanpublishedhisbook,RisksandWrongs,wherehepresentscorrectivejusticeastheprinciplethatthosewhoareresponsibleforthewrongfullossesofothershaveadutytorepairthem,andwherehearguesthatthecoreoftortlawembodiesthisconceptofcorrectivejustice.Inhisessayhere,ThePracticeofCorrectiveJustice,Colemanprobesfurtherintothenatureofcorrectivejusticeanditsroleinthelawoftorts,Broadlyviewed,correctivejusticeisoheofthenormsthatapplywhenpersonsaresomehowconnectedwiththemisfortunesofothers,providinganimportantlinkbetweenagentsandvictims.Rootinghisparticularconceptionofcorrectivejusticeinliberalpoliticalmorality,Colemanmaintainsthattheconceptisproperlyviewedasthedutytomakerepair,tomakegoodthevictimsloss,butonlyifthelossiswrongful,andonlyiftheagentisresponsibleforhavingbroughtabouttheloss.Heclaimsaswellthatthose(includinghimself)whooffercorrectivejusticeaccountsoftortlawarecommittedtotheclaimthatcorrectivejusticehasobjectivesemanticcontent.Thisleadshimtoadiscussionofthemeta-ethicsoftheconceptofcorrectivejustice.Arguingforananti-realistapproachtotheconcept,heclaimsthatitscorecontentisdrawnfromthepractices(includingtortlaw)inwhichitfigures.Andsohespeaksofthepracticeofcorrectivejustice.ThusColemancontendsthattortlawitselfhelpsprovidecontenttocorrectivejustice,whilecorrectivejusticeinturnservesasacriterionforassessingexistingtortpractice.Asforthesubstantiveessenceofcorrectivejustice,hemaintainsthatitcontainsacoherentcorethatincludeshumanagency,rectification,andcorrelativity.Finally,Colemanexploresotherfeaturesofthepracticeofcorrectivejustice,arguingthatitscontentispre-political(p.9) (independentoflegalandotherpoliticalinstitutions),non-instrumental(independentofsocialgoals,likecostavoidance),whileremainingultimatelydependentonthemoral,legal,andpoliticalpracticesalreadyexistingwithinthecommunity.
BorrowingfromH.L.A.Hartsapproachtothecriminallaw,TonyHonor6posesandanswerssixquestionsthattogetherframemuchofthemoralaspectoftortlaw.Inhisfirstessayhere,TheMoralityofTortLawQuestionsandAnswers,Honor6arguesthatthethresholdaimoftortlaw,likethecriminallaw,istominimizeundesirableconduct.Buthenotesthatotherprinciplesalsoconstraintortlawinthepursuitofthisaim.Thuscorrectivejustice,basedonequality,requiresaharm-doertoputthematterright,whichintortlawusuallyrequiresthepaymentofcompensationtothevictim.Whilefaultisanimportantbasisofresponsibilityforharm,HonorsnotionofOutcome-responsibilityprovidesabroaderformofresponsibilitythatmaygenerateadutytocompensateongroundsotherthanfault.Distributivejustice,inHonorsview,includesthenotionthatlossesfromrisk-creatingconductshouldfallupontheactorcommensuratewiththepossibilityofgainshesoughtfromtheconduct.Underprinciplesofretributivejustice,hemaintains,thepenaltyimposedonthedefendantshouldnotbedisproportionatetothewrong.Byspreadinglosses,insuranceadvancesthegoalsofdistributivejusticeaswellasretributivejustice,HonorSexplains,andithelpsassurethatstrictliabilitydoesnotimposeaburdenonthedefendantgreaterthanhisbenefitorfault.Inadditiontothe
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 7 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
constraintsofproportionality,hearguesthattortresponsibilityshouldbelimitedtoharmwithinthescopeofthepertinentliabilityrules.Honor6alsoreasonsthatprinciplesofbothcorrectiveandretributivejusticesuggestthatresponsibilityshouldbeproportionedaccordingtothemannerandextenttowhichthevictimcontributedtotheharmfuloutcome.Finally,hecontendsthatcertainformsofstatecompensationschemes,suchasthedistributionofmotoringriskstoallmotoristsortheentirecommunity,appearcompatiblewithprinciplesofrisk-distributivejustice.Inreviewingtheanswerstothesixquestionsposedatthestart,Honor6explainsthatthetortsystemisjustifiedasameansbywhichthestate,subjecttotheconstraintsofjustice,seekstoreduceundesirableconductbytreatingcertainindividualinterestsasrightsthattheright-holderisempoweredtoprotectwheninfringedbyconductmarkedasacivilwrong.
III.PrinciplesandValuesUnderlyingTortLawArethereprinciples,values,ortruthsofmoraltheorythathelpthelawoftortsestablishnormsofproperconductforavoidingharmtoothers?Ifso,whatmightsuchnotionsbe,andfromwhencedidtheyderive?Isthereuse(p.10) inorganizingtorttheoryaroundtheprinciplesinternaltotortlawitself,suchasthedoctrineofforeseeability?Whatlessonsmaybelearnedfromastudyoftheethicalinquiriesofthegreatphilosophers,fromAristotletoAquinasandhisfollowers,toKantandHegel?Andhow(ifatall)mightsuchprincipleshelpexplain,justify,andguidethelawoftortstoday?Moreparticularly,shouldtortlawbeviewedineconomicterms,asamanifestationofwealthmaximizationprinciples,orshoulditbeviewedinsteadasareflectionofamoralethicsuchasequalfreedom?Orisitreallycomprehensibleonlyintermsofthepluralisticworldofconflictingvaluesabroadinsociallife?ThesearethekindsofquestionsexaminedbytheessaysinPartII.
Sometimeago,RichardPosnerbegananinquiryintothephilosophicaljustificationsfortheeconomicexplanationoflawthathehasdevelopedovertheyears.34Thepurposeofhispresentessay,WealthMaximizationandTortLaw:APhilosophicalInquiry,istorestate,refine,andamplifythephilosophicalversionofhisargumentthatwealthmaximizationisthebestnormativeguidetothelawoftorts.Ratherthanbeingderivedfromasinglemoraltheory,suchasutilitarianism,Posnerarguesthatwealthmaxi-mizationisconsistentwithavarietyofmoraltheoriesandrepugnanttonone.Forillustration,PosnerfirstexplainshowParetooptimality,basedontheliberalnotionofconsent,mayberoughlyaccomplishedthroughthenegligencesystem,sinceactors(whoarealsopotentialvictims)wouldprobablypreferasysteminwhichthesumofliabilityandaccident(victim)insurancecostsareminimized.Next,heexplainshowcommon-sense-ruleutilitarianismfavorsliabilityrulesthatminimizethesumofthesesamecosts,andsomaximizewealth.Nor,inPosnersview,isAristoteliancorrectivejustice,whichseekstorectifywrongfultransactions,incompatiblewithwealthmaximization,forthelattertheoryprovidesguidanceinascer-tainingthetypesoftransactionsthatshouldbeconsideredwrongful.EvenKantiandeontology,heargues,whichproscribestheuseofothersmerelyasends,isconsistentwithasystemoftortlawwhichaccommodatesconflictingactivitiesbymaximizingtheircombinedvalue,anapproachwhichenjoinspotentialinjurersandvictimsaliketoaccorddueconsiderationtoeachothersinterests.Finally,
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 8 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
hearguesthat,althoughthewealth-maximizingdamagesprinciplesoftortlawdotendtoratifyratherthanredistributepre-existingholdingsofwealth,broad-basedegalitarianismissimplyunachievableasapracticalmatterthroughchangesinthetortsystem.Thus,Posnerconcludesthatthetheoryofwealthmaximization(p.11) supportstheexistingsystemoftortlawbecauseitisrootedin,andnotinconsistentwith,thevariousmoraltraditionsofsociety.
InTheUneasyPlaceofPrincipleinTortLaw,GeorgeChristieexplorestheroleofprincipleintortlaw,andhedoessoskeptically.CitingCokesassertionthatReasonisthelifeofthelaw,ChristieremindsusofHolmesrejectionofthisviewinhisfamousaphorism,Thelifeoflawhasnotbeenlogic:ithasbeenexperience.Yettheurgeoflawyerstofindsomecoherentlogicalstructureinthelaw,observesChristie,persists.Christienotespreliminarilytheimportanceanddifficultyofobtainingagreementontheverymeaningofaparticularprincipleandonpropermethodsofapplyingittoconcretefactsituations.ExaminingthesearchforprincipleintheBritishtort-lawcasesconcerningresponsibilityforeconomicloss,pureandotherwise,Christietracestheriseandfalloftheprincipleofforeseeabilityasthecontrollingprincipleinthiscontext.HethenturnstotheuseandabuseoftheforeseeabilitylimitationprincipleinAmericancases,firstintheeconomic-losscontextandtheninregardtoparent-childrecoveryforlostconsortium,showinghowtheprinciplehascausedperhapsmoreconfusionthanhelpfulguidanceinbothcontexts.ButChristierejectsthenihilist(orextremerealist)viewofprincipleasnonsense,arguinginsteadforamoremoderateposition.Becausetheverypurposeofalegalsystemistorequiredecision-makerstojustifytheirdecisionsaccordingtosomerelevantcriteria,Christiereasonsthatprinciplecanplaysomeroleinprovidingcriteriafordecision-making.Inreflectingtherichlydiversegoalsandvaluesoflife,Christiearguesthatprinciplesaremoreproperlyviewedasdevicesbywhichhumansseektoachievethegoodlifethanasultimatesorendsinthemselves.Principlesguidedecision-making;theydonotcontrolit.Hefurthercontendsthatdecisionsincomplexcasesaretoocomplicatedtobemadetodependuponsomesinglenormativeprinciple,whetherforeseeabilityorsomethingelse.Christieconcludesthatwemusthavemoremodestexpectationsofhowprinciplemayhelpthelawoftorts.
JamesGordleyinvestigatestheancientrootsoftortlawinhisessay,TortLawintheAristotelianTradition.AristotlesbriefaccountofcorrectivejusticeinNicomacheanEthics,explainsGordley,wasthestartingpointforphilosophicalanalysisoftortlawbyThomasAquinasandThomistscholarsinmedievalandearlymodernEurope.GordleyarguesthatthebroaderAristotelianconceptionoftorttheorydevelopedbyThomasandhisfollowersbetterjustifiesthelawoftortsthandothetheoriesofmoderntort-lawscholars.Beginningwithanexplanationofcorrectiveanddistributivejustice,GordleydescribeshowanAristotelian-ThomisticaccountofthedefenseofnecessityprovidesabetterexplanationofmodernAmericanandEuropeantortlawdoctrinethandointerpretationsofmodernscholars.CorrectivejusticeintheAristoteliantradition,whichaimsattherestorationofapre-existingequality,linkstheplaintiffsrightandthedefendants(p.12) duty:thedefendantmustpaybecausehehasuseduptheplaintiffsresourcesforhisownends.GordleyexplainshowAristotle,Thomas,andCajetanrested
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 9 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
responsibilityforaccidentalharmonthenotionofprudence,whichentailsaweighingofrisksandprecautions,asinthemodernapproachtonegligenceexplainedbyJudgeLearnedHandinformulaictermsintheCarrollTowingcase.Gordleyargues,however,thattheAristotelian-Thomisticaccount,inwhichtheweighingofcostsandbenefitsisascribedtothemoralvirtueofprudence,ismoresatisfactorythantheaccountofmoderneconomistswhosetheoriesrestonincentivesandefficiency.AlthoughtheAristoteliantraditionneveradequatelyaddressedstrictliability,Gordleycontendsthatstrictliabilitycanbeexplainedbytheprinciplesofthattradition:anactorshouldbeliableifhechoosestouseupanothersresourcesforhisownends,forexamplebyexposingotherstoespeciallyhighrisksinordertoobtainsomebenefitforhimself.
InRight,Justice,andTortLaw,RichardWrightexploresthenormativefoundationoftortlaw.AgreeingwithErnestWeinribthatpluralisttheoriesarebynatureincoherentandindeterminate,andarguingthattheutilitarianefficiencynormofmaximizingaggregatesocialwelfareisnormativelydeficient,Wrightoffersatheoryoftortlawbasedonthesinglefoundationalnormofequalfreedom.HeelaboratesKantsconceptsoffreedomandright,notingthattheprimarypurposeofthestateunderKantiantheoryofmoralityandlawistoenforceeachpersonsbasicrightofequalfreedom.WrightthenturnstoaconsiderationofAristotlesconceptionsofcorrectiveanddistributivejustice,arguingthattheyconstitutethenegativeandpositiveaspects,respectively,oftherightofequalfreedom.Heassertsthat,assuch,theyareindependentbutcompatibleandcomprehensivetypesofjustice,withdistinctdomains,grounds,andstructures.Correctivejustice,heexplains,appliestoindividualinteractionsandrequiresthattheeffectsofsuchinteractionsontheinteractingpartiesresourcesbeconsistentwitheachpartysequalnegativefreedom,whiledistributivejusticefocusesonapersonsstatusasamemberofthepoliticalcommunityandrequiresthatthecommunitysresourcesbedistributedtopromotetheequalpositivefreedomofeachpersoninthecommunity.Wrightarguesthattortlaw,beingconcernedwithindividualinteractions,isgroundedincorrectivejustice.Heseekstodemonstratethatcorrectivejustice,withitscriterionofequalnegativefreedom,explains,justifies,andilluminatesthegeneralstructure,content,andinstitutionsoftortlaw,includingtheavailabilityofpunitivedamagesinappropriatecases.Finally,stressingthelogicalandnormativecorrelativityofrightsanddutiesandthebilateralstructureoftherightsanddutiesofcorrectivejustice,Wrightarguesthatproposedalternativestotortlaw,suchascompulsoryno-faultinsuranceschemesorat-faultriskpools,whichignorethisbilateralcorrelativity,areunjustandhenceunjustifiable.
(p.13) Inthispartofthevolume,eachoftheessaystothispointfocusesuponabstractprinciplesandvaluesthoughttounderliethelawoftorts.Intheessaythatconcludesthissection,TheIdeaofComplementarityasaPhilosophicalBasisforPluralisminTortLaw,IzhakEnglardengagesaquestiononwhichthepriorauthorshavedisagreed:whethertortlawisbestexplainedintermsofasingleprincipleorvalue,orwhetherinsteaditrestsonamultiplicityofnorms.Arguingthattherealityoftortlawispluralistic,ashesoughttoshowinanextensiveanalysisoftortpracticesinhisrecentbook,35Englardexplainsandnormativelydefendsthisthesisinhisessayhere.Unimpressedbyargumentsofmonists(suchasErnestWeinrib)andcriticallegalstudiestheorists(such
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 10 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
asJackBalkin)thatpluralisticapproachesareincoherentandunintelligible,Englardclaimsthatpositivetortlawisbaseduponpolyvalentjustificationsthatinfactareoftenlogicallyincompatible.EnglardfindsjustificatorysupportforhispluralisticconceptionoftortlawinanotioncoinedcomplementaritybytheDanishphysicist(andquasi-philosopher)NielsBohrtoaddressthewave-particledualityproblemofquantummechanics.Thecomplementarityterm,explainsEnglard,wasmeanttoconveytheideathatthefullunderstandingofphysicalrealitymayrequiretheuseofcontrasting,mutuallyexclusivemodels.Bohrbelievedthatthesignificanceofcomplementarityextendedbeyondatomicphysicstootherfieldswhereitsepistemologicalimportanceforempiricalknowledgecouldbefruitfullyemployed.ExploringtheancientlineageoftheprincipleofpolardualityinsuchformsasYinandYang,Englardnotesthedifficultiesinmovingthecomplementaritynotionfromitsdescriptiveroleinexplainingphysicalrealitytotheprescriptiverealmofestablishingnormsforsociallife.Finally,Englardexplainsinavarietyofcontextshowtheidealvisionofharmonybetweencontrastingprinciples,ascapturedinthecomplementaritynotion,isahelpfulphilosophicalconceptionthatprovidesadeepenedunderstandingoftortlawproblems.
IV.PhilosophicalPerspectivesonTortLawProblemsThefocusofthisfinalpartofthevolume,PartIII,isonphilosophicnotionsatplaywithinthecontextofparticulartortlawproblems.Thesubjectoftortlawmightfairlybesaidtoinvolvethenatureandextentofanactorslegalresponsibilitytoavictimforcausingharm.Ifso,thenoneimportantpreliminaryquestionfortortlawmustbehowresponsibilityforcausingharmshouldbedefinedandlimited.Shoulditrestonlyupontheactorsmoraldesert,limitedbynotionsofblameworthinessforactingupon(p.14)choicesthatarebysomemeasurebad,asviewedexante?Orshouldtheconceptoftortresponsibilitybewidenedtoembracetheharmfulconsequencesoftheactorsconduct,includingvictimneeds,expost?Indoctrinalterms,shouldliabilitybebasedonfaultorshoulditinsteadbestrict?Andhowshouldsuchconceptsbedefined?QuestionssuchasthesearethesubjectofthefirstsectionofPartIII.Thenextsectioninthispartexploresthethreelinkingaspectsoftortlawthatservetoconnectanagentsresponsibilityandavictimsharmrisk,causation,anddamage.ThefinalsectioninPartHIconcernstheproblemofcontributoryvictimfaultthenatureofavictimsownfaultyconduct,andhowitshouldbearontheresponsi-bilityintortofanotherpersonalsoresponsibleforthecausingthevictimsharm.
A.ResponsibilityandtheBasisofLiabilityForatleastacentury,thebasisofliabilityintortlawhasbeenorderedformallyaccordingtoatripartiteresponsibilityscalebasedontheculpabilityoftheactor.Onthisbasis,tortactionsconventionallyhavebeenclassifiedintooneofthefollowingcategories:(1)intentionallyinflictedharm,(2)negligentlycausedharm,and(3)no-faultorstrictliabilityforcausingharm.Theessaysinthissectionexplorephilosophicalfoundationsoflegalresponsibilityforcausingharmtoothersfromthisvantagepoint,examiningtortlawobligationsfromtheperspectiveofoneormoreofthesethreeseparatebasesofliabilitygroundedinfault.
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 11 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Thefirstthreeessaysinthissectionexaminefundamentalaspectsofthefault-basedtheoriesofrecoveryintortintentandnegligenceeachauthorsearchinginadifferentwayforanunderstandingofthemeaningoffaultforcausingharm,inbothmoralandlegalterms.Thelasttwoessaysinthissectionfocusonresponsibilityfordangerousactivitiesandthings.Puttingtouseandtryingtocopewiththehazardsindangerousthingshasinheredinthehumanconditionsincethedawnofman.Whetherthegoalhasbeentoharnessandcontrolthedangersoffireorwildanimalsor,morerecently,ofgunpowder,reservoirs,orthepowersinherentintheproductsofmodernengineering,physics,andchemistry,thedestructivepowerofsuchthingssometimesescapesandcausesharm.Incasessuchasthese,tortlawhastendedtoturnawayfromtheexplicitlyfault-basedapproachofnegligencedoctrinetowardothertheoriesofliabilitycalledstrict.Onwhatbasisthepersonmakingorusingthedangerousthingshouldbeliableforresultingaccidentalharm,whetherstrictlyforallsuchharmormerelyformisadventuresthatresultfromfault,isaproblemthathaslongconfoundedcourtsadjudicatingtortclaimsforsuchlosses.
Beginningtheinvestigationhere,myessay,PhilosophicalFoundationsofFaultinTortLaw,inquiresintotheessentialsoffaultforcausingharmthat(p.15) supportresponsibilityforbothintentionaltortsandnegligenceandthatexplainandjustifythegreatbulkoftort-lawdoctrine.Theinquirycentersonaconsiderationofthenatureofhumanchoice,action,andharm,whichtogetherilluminatethefundamentalsofmoralresponsibilityforcausingharm.Firstconsideredfromthisperspectivearetheidealsoffreedom,equality,andcommongood.Undertheumbrellaofequalfreedom,threeprinciplesofchoicewhichIcallthechoice-endprinciple,thechoice-harmprinciple,andthechoice-blameprinciplehelpexplainthemoralqualityofharmfulhumanbehaviorinvarioustortlawcontexts.Inorderingthepertinentvalues,Iarguethattheequalfreedomethicislexicallypriortoutility,butthatutilityservesavitaldefaultfunctionthatplaysamajorroleinascertainingresponsibilityforaccidentalharm.Whentheorderinginquiryshiftsfrombehavioralidealstotheinterestssubjecttoharm,Iarguethathumanlifeandlimbareproperlyvaluedmorehighlythanproperty,wealth,andconvenienceinthecontextofintentionalharms,butthat,whenthefocusshiftstoaccidentcases,theequal-freedomethicgenerallyrequiresthatallinterestsbethrownwithoutpreferenceintothedecisionalcalculus.Finally,applyingthesevariousperspectivestothephilosophicessentialsoffaultforbothintentionalandaccidentalharm,Iconcludethatthereislittleplaceinmoraltheoryforrulesofstrictliabilityintortlaw,andthatthegreatbulkofthelawoftortsinsteadisproperlybasedonfault.Thenextessay,IntentioninTortLaw,byJohnFinnis,exploresthepar-ticularrealmofliabilityforintentionallyinflictedharm.Investigatingthenatureandsignificanceoftheconceptofintentionatworkintortlaw,FinnisarguesforacommonsenseviewoftheconceptandagainstvariousconstructiveextensionsofthenotionemployedovertheyearsbycourtsandtheRestatementofTortsthatdeprivetheconceptofitsnormativepower.Illustratingwiththespringguncaseshowmisuseoftheintentionconceptmayconfuseanalysisoftortlawproblems,heexplainsthatintentionplaysacentralroleinmoralassessmentbecauseofitsfocusonthedeliberation,proposalsforaction,andchoicethatliebehindaction.Simplystated,[w]hatoneintendsiswhatonechooses.Accordingly,hecriticizestherejectionofintentionby
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 12 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
economictheoristsforfailingtocomprehenditsmoralsignificanceintortlaw.Finniscritiquestheconceptsofintention(andrelatedmotivations)inearlyHouseofLordsopinionsholdingthatabadmotive(intenttoharm)doesnotrenderotherwiselawfulconductunlawful(tortious),andhecontraststhenotionofrealintentiontotheconstructive,objectiveformulationoftheconceptembodiedintheRestatementssubstantiallycertaintoresult(alternative)definition.Commonmoralityfindsnormativesignificanceinreal(asopposedtocon-structive)intent,Finnisargues,inlargepartbecausetheprocessofactuallychoosingaresultendures,persists,andremainsinoneswill,therebyformingapermanentpartofthepersonscharacter.Forapersontochoose(p.16) toharmanotherpersonistheparadigmaticwrong,theexemplaryinstanceofdenialofright.Thecommonperceptionofintentconflictswiththeutilitarianmodel,whichallowsintentionalharmifitmaximizeswealth.Yetaprimaryfunctionofgovernment,Finnismaintains,istoapplycommutativejusticetorectifysuchintentionalharmsbyrequiringtheactortorepairthevictimsloss.Distinguishingthefairnessprinciplesofnegligencelawfromtheconceptofintent,henotestheanalogicalrelationshipbetweenthetwo.Finnisconcludesbyreiteratingthatrealintentionshouldnotbeconfusedwithartificialconceptualextensions,thatintentionasproperlyunderstoodismorallysignificant,andthatintenttoharmisapersewrong-makingfactorinanyconduct.
Turningtheinquiryfromintentionallycausedharmtoaccidentalharm,RichardWrightinhisessayhereexplorestheKantian-Aristotelianfoundationsofnegligence,themostcommonbasisofliabilityforaccidentalloss.InTheStandardsofCareinNegligenceLaw,Wrightarguesthattheequalfreedomnormisnormativelymoreattractivethanitschiefcompetitor,utilitarianefficiency,contendingthatitalsobetterexplainstheoutcomesofthenegligencecases.InafrontalassaultonJudgeLearnedHandsfamousrisk-utilityformula,whichgenerallyisthoughttoreflecttheutilitarianefficiencyapproach,Wrightarguesthattheformulaisbothanalyticallyanddescriptivelyflawed.Heexaminesvariousnon-utilitarianeffortstojustifyorcriticizetheHandformulaincludingthoseofRonaldDworkin,ErnestWeinrib,CharlesFried,GeorgeFletcher,andLeslieBenderandconcludesthatallfallintotheaggregation-of-intereststrapofutilitarianism.Identifyingthreedifferentaspectsofthestandardsofcareinnegligencelawtheriskstakenintoaccount,the(objectiveversussubjective)perspectivesapplied,andthesubstantivecriteriaofreasonablenesshearguesthateachoftheseaspectsisformulateddifferentlydependingonwhetherthedefendantsortheplaintiffsnegligenceisatissue,andthatonlytheequalfreedomtheorycanexplainandjustifythisdifferingtreatment.Wrightconcludesbysurveyingthestandardsofcareinanumberofrecurringcontextsthoseinvolvingdefendantstreatingothersasmeans,sociallyessentialactivities,premisesliability,participatoryplaintiffs,paternalisticdefendants,plaintiffsself-interestedconduct,plaintiffsself-sacrificingconduct,andfailurestoaidorrescue.Hemaintainsthat,consistentwiththeequal-freedomtheorybutnotwiththeutilitarianefficiencytheory,differentstandardsofcareareappliedinthesedifferentsituations,dependingprimarilyonwhoputwhomatriskforwhosebenefit,andonwhetherthepersonputatriskconsentedtotherisk.
InTheSeriousnessofHarmThesisforAbnormallyDangerousActivities,KenKress
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 13 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
exploresthebasisofliabilityforactivitiesthatareinsomewayspeciallydangerous,activitiesthatgenerallyareclassifiedinAmericantortlawtodayasabnormallydangerous.Kresschallengestheconventional(p.17) approachtoliabilityinthiscontext,whichheviewsasbaseduponanotionofsuper-riskofexpectedharm.Bysettingliabilityonthetraditionalanalyticpillarsofexpecteddisvalue(probabilityofinjurytimesanticipatedharm)anduncommonness,theconventionalanalysismanifestsaconcernforconsequentialist,utilitarian,andefficiencyrationaleswhichKressfindsinadequateifnotunacceptable.Instead,heoffersasolutionwhichhecallstheseriousnessofharmthesis.Hisviewoftheproperbasisofliabilityinthisarea,majesticinitssimplicity,isthatthedominantfactorofimportanceisthesizeofthelossifitdoesoccurtheseriousnessofharmandonlysecondarilythe(conditional)probabilitythatlosswilloccuriftheinstrumentalityescapestheactorscontrol.Kresscriticizesutilitariancost-benefitanalysesonanumberofgrounds,andhearguesthatthemaximindecisionruleisrationallypreferableundercertaincircumstanceswhichheelaborates.Butheultimatelyrejectsmaximindecision-making,concludingthatitprovidesinsufficientjustificatorysupportforaspecialruleofstrictliabilityforabnormallydangerousactivities.Becausetheabnormallydangerousactivitiescasesarebestexplainedintermsofseriousnessofharm,Kressconcludesthatthisthesisissuperiortoconventionalanalysesofliabilityinthisbranchoftortlaw.
Inanarticleseveralyearsago,JohnAttanasioofferedanaggregate-autonomyjustificationforGuidoCal^ bresisstrictliabilityapproachtoproductsliability.36Attanasiotherearguedthattheaggregateautonomyprincipleobligatesproductmanufacturers(throughliability)andotherconsumers(throughhigherprices)tosurrendersmallamountsofwealthtoprovidecompensationtopersonsseverelyinjuredinproductaccidents.ManufacturersshouldbeliableforsuchinjuriesonastrictliabilitybasiswhentheyarethebestdecidersunderCalabresianeconomictheory,accordingtoAttanasio,inordertomaximizetheinternalizationofaccidentcoststomanufacturersandtherebypromotethegreatestaggregateautonomyinsociety.Inhispresentessay,AggregateAutonomy,theDifferencePrinciple,andtheCalabresianApproachtoProductsLiability,Attanasiofurtherexplainsanddevelopsthisthesis.WhilethewritingsofJohnRawlsprovideonlygeneral,amorphoussupportforaCalabresianstrict-liabilityapproachtoproductsliability,Rawlswork(particularlythedifferenceprinciple)didinspirethedevelopmentoftheprincipleofaggregateautonomyinboth,thebetteroffarerequiredtoassistthelessadvantaged.Thus,althoughtheaggregate-autonomytheoryisrootedpartiallyinNozickiannotionsoffreedom,thetheoryborrowsegalitarianaspectsfromRawls.Ultimately,Attanasiosays,theprincipleofaggregateautonomyseekstomaximizethenumberofindividualsinsocietywhohaveatleastsomeminimallevelofautonomy.MorethanRawlsdifferenceprinciple,(p.18) theaggregateautonomyethicseekstoprovideforthebasicneedsofaccidentvictims,anditaccomplishesthisbyexactingsmallamountsofwealthfromothermembersofsociety.Inthismanner,Attanasioconcludes,theprincipleofaggregateautonomyhelpsreconcilethefundamentaltensionbetweenlibertyandequality.
B.ConnectingAgencyandHarm:Risk,Causation,andDamage
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 14 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Thissectioninvestigatesthecomplexlinkbetweenresponsibilityandharm,alinkcomprisedofmanystrands.Atitscenteristhefundamentalconnectinginstrumentofcausationthevitalnexusthatbringstogetherintoatortanagentsmisconductandresultingharm.Viewedfromthecenter,thequestionposedisWhatcausedwhat?Causationissuesarecolored,however,byissuesofresponsibilityandharmthatconnecttoitoneitherside.So,mattersbearingonresponsibilityandriskneedfirsttobeunderstoodinordertodecideorevendefinetheissueofWhatcausedwhat?So,too,ontheotherside,tortlawmustdecidewhatcountsasharm,iftheWhatcausedwhat?questionistomakemuchsense.Allthreeaspectsofthetortlawlinkingproblemareexploredwithinthissection.
Inhisessay,Risk,Harm,andResponsibility,StephenPerryexploresthenatureofrisk,howitrelatestoharm,andultimatelyhowthetwointerconnectwithresponsibilityintortlaw.Perrybeginswithaninquiryintothetwomainconceptionsofprobabilitythatareplausiblecandidatesforunderstandingthemoralsignificanceofrisk,whichhetermstheobjectiveandepistemicconceptions.Emergingfromtherelativefrequencytheoryofprobability,themostbasicunderstandingoftheobjectiveconceptionregardsprobabilitiesasjustacertainkindofempiricalfactintheworld.Perryexplainshowtheepistemicconception,accordingtothepreferredreasonablenessaccount,viewsprobabilityjudgmentsasestimatesofobjec-tiveprobabilitiesintherelativefrequencysense.Suchjudgmentsarebasedoninductivereasoning,andtheyarealwaysrelativetoagivenbodyofevidence.Perrynextexaminesthepropositionadvancedrecentlybysometheoriststhatsubjectinganothertoariskofharm,orreducinghischanceofavoidingharm,shoulditselfbeviewedasaformofharmredressableintort.Hearguesthatlostchance,understoodsimplyasaprobabilityintherelativefrequencysense,doesnotconstituteharminitsownright,butthatlostopportunity,understoodintermsofdetrimentalreliance,mightwelldoso.Finally,Perryconsiderswhenanagentwhoseriskyconductcausesharmtoanotherbearsmoralresponsibilityfortheharm.Arguingthatsuchresponsibilityshouldbegroundedinanepistemicnotionofrisk,herejectsthelibertarianargumentthatactorsshouldbeheldmorallyaccountableforthematerializationofanyobjectiveriskstheycreate,atheorythatleadsunacceptablytoastandardofabsoluteliability.Instead,Perryfavorsa(p.19) notionofoutcome-responsibilitythatisrootedintheavoidabilityofharm.Avoidability,heargues,presupposesanepistemicviewofriskthatwouldlimitresponsibilityintorttoharmthatisforeseeable.Perryconcludesthatthisprovidesamoralbasisforbothnegligenceandrisk-basedstrictliability.
Howisthefactthatsomeactorhascausedanotherpersontosufferalossrelatedtoaresponsibilitytorepairtheloss?SoasksChristopherSchroederinCausation,Compensation,andMoralResponsibility,inwhichheexploreshowcausationrelatestoresponsibilityforharmandhowtheelementofcausationmoregenerallyfitsinthelawoftorts.Arguingthatadutytocompensateinheresinthebasicstructureoftortlaw,reflectedbythemaxim,Ifyoubreakit,youpayforit,Schroedersessayinvestigatestheelusivenessofthesearchforaconvincingmoralrationaleforthecompensationduty.Pursuingthesearchforsucharationale,hedividesthetortparadigmintoitsthree
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 15 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
essentialelements(1)avictimwhosuffersanundeservedloss,(2)adeficientactor,and(3)anactionthatcausestheloss,andhesubjectseachtocertainstandardmodesofmoralevaluation.Findingeachoftheseelementsdeficientinprovidingajustificationforimposingacompensationobligationontheactor,Schroederthenexplorestheadequacyofthemorecomplexhumanagencyoutcome-responsibilitytheoriesofTonyHonor6andStephenPerry.Althoughherecognizesthataharmfuloutcomemaywellimposeresponsibilitiesbeyondsimplyacknowledgingonesagencyinproducingthatharm,Schroederfindssuchtheoriesinadequatetosupportthedutytocompensate;allthatoutcome-responsibilitycansupplyisareasonforaresponse,notforaparticularresponse,andcertainlynotforadutyfullytorectifythevictimsloss.Schroederturnsfinallytotheprincipleofequalitythatentitleseachpersontobetreatedwithequaldignityandrespect.Notingtheusefulnessofthisconceptinascertainingthefaultinessofconduct,aswhentheactorfailstorespectequallytheinterestsofthevictim,Schroederarguesthateventhispowerfulbasisforascertainingthemoralqualityofanactissimplyincapableofsupplyinginadditionarationaleforthedutytocompensate,forrequiringtheactorinparticulartorectifythevictimsloss.Hequestionswhethertheconceptofequaldignityandrespectcanbeconsistentwithdrawingthekindofsharpdistinctioncontemplatedbythedutytocompensateonthebasisofthesinglefactofcausation.Causationbyitself,hereasons,providestooslenderareedforsuchasharpdistinction.AridsoSchroederconcludesthatonemustlooksomewhereotherthancausationtofindajustificationforthedutytocompensateintortlaw.
In1959,TonyHonoreandH.L.A.Hartpublishedthefirsteditionoftheirseminalwork,CausationintheLaw?37There,theyarguedthattobeacauseofsomeevent,aprioreventmusthavebeenacausallyrelevant(p.20) conditionoftheresultingevent,inthattheprioreventwasanecessaryelementinasetofpriorandconcurrentconditionsthattogetherwassufficienttoproducetheresult.In1965,JohnMackieappliedtheHartandHonoreapproachtocausalregularitiescausalgeneralizationsoftypesofevents,ratherthanspecificeventsinatheorythatwassometimesapplicabletospecificeventsaswell.CritiquingMackiestheory,andelaboratingupontheHartandHonor6causal-relevancyapproach,RichardWrightin1985propoundedwhathetermedtheNESS(NecessaryElementofaSufficientSet)test,38anapproachtocausationthathasreceivedwideacceptanceinrecentyears.
Inhisessayoncausationhere,NecessaryandSufficientConditionsinTortLaw,TonyHonor6continuestounraveltheelusivemysteriesofcausation.TakingtheNESStestasthestandard,heexaminesvariouswaysinwhichtheNESSandbut-fortestsagreeanddiffer.Intermsoftheiragreement,Honor6explainstheimportanceoftyingtheplaintiffsharmtothedefendantsbreachofdutyratherthansimplytothedefendantsconduct,andthenecessityunderboththeoriesofformulatingandansweringcounterfactualhypotheticalquestions.Hethenexaminescontextswherethetwocausationtheoriesinterpretproblemsdifferently,sometimesproducingthesameandsometimesdifferentcausalconclusions.Fromthisperspective,Honor6exploresthreetypesofoverdeterminationcases,thoseinvolving(1)similarcausalprocessesculminatingatthesametime,(2)differentcausalprocesses,and(3)subsequentcausationofharmthatalready
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 16 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
hasoccurred.Finally,heinquiresintoproblemsofindeterminacy,showingthatneithercausationtheoryadequatelyexplainsthecausalperplexitiesofhumandecision-makingandbehavior;neithercanfullyunravelthemys-teriesofwhatcaused,persuaded,orprovokedsomeonetoactashedid,butsomethinganalogoustotheideaofsufficiencycanaidourunderstanding.Honoreconcludesthatcausationisimportanttotortlawinthatithelpstoexplainpuzzlingevents,fixtheouterlimitsofsocialresponsibility,andassurethatliabilityisimposedonlyfor(unlawful)conductthathaschangedthecourseofeventsfortheworse.
TheapparentunfairnessofatortregimethatimposesfulltortliabilityuponpersonswhosemomentaryinadvertencehappenstoresultinmassivelossesisthetopicofJeremyWaldronsessay.InMomentsofCarelessnessandMassiveLoss,Waldronsinvestigationintothelogicandfairnessofthetortsystemthusexplorestheconnectionandsometimesgrossdisparitybetweenthedegreeofavictimslossandthedegreeoftheactorsfault.Pointingtotheintuitiveunfairnessofsuchasystemintermsofindividualdesert,heconsidersandrejectstheargumentthatissuesofdesertshouldbelefttothedomainofretributivejusticeandthecriminallaw,wheretheyare(p.21) morewidelyacceptedasbeingcentraltoresponsibility.Agapingdisproportionbetweenthemoralcharacterofapersonsactionsandtheconsequencesattendantthereto,Waldronargues,seemstoviolatenotionsoffairnessanddesertasmuchintortaselsewhereinthelaw.Henextexaminestheso-calledannulmenttheoryoftortlaw,wherethegoalissaidtobethesimultaneousannulmentoftheactorsgainsandthevictimslosses,andheexplainsitsinabilitytoresolvethefairnessproblemunderconsideration.Nordoesadistributivejusticefocusontheunfairnesstothevictimofsufferingthelosshelpmuch,inWaldronsview:themerefactthatanaccidentcausedadisruptioninthepriorjustdistributionofgoodsprovidesnomorereasonforforcingthedisruptionupontheactorthanleavingituponthevictim.Questioningwhetherthecausalrequirementintortlawmaynotbetoostronginlimitingtheclassofpersonsaskedtoshoulderanenormouslosstotheactorandthevictim,Waldronsuggeststhatabroaderinsuranceapproachtoaccidentlossesmaybepreferabletothelawoftorts.BorrowingthepenallotterytheoryofcriminalpunishmentproposedbyDavidLewis,Waldronexploresthepossibilityofviewingapersonsriskyactionasimposingachanceorlotteryuponpotentialvictims.Iftheactorsinadvertenceinaparticularcaseunluckilyhappenstocauseinjuryifthevictimsnumberisunluckilycalledupthenneitherfairnessnordesertwouldseemtobemuchoffendedbyplacingtheconsequencesofthelotterychosenbytheactoruponhishead.Fromthisperspective,thepurchasecostofinflictingalotteryuponothersistoaccepttheconsequencesoneself.Bysoimposingrisks(ofliability)onnegligentactorscorrespondingpreciselytotherisksthatnegligentactorsimposeonothers,evenformassivelosseswhentheydooccur,Waldronarguesthattheall-or-nothingdamageslotteryapproachoftortlawmayexplainawaytheappearanceofunfairnessinsuchliability.Evenassoviewed,however,heconcludesthatthetortsystemremainsunattractivetosocialinsuranceschemesforaddressingaccidentalloss.
Theroleoftort-lawdamagesincorrectivejusticegenerally,andfornon-pecuniarylossinparticular,isthetopicofBruceChapmansessay,Wrongdoing,Welfare,andDamages:
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 17 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
RecoveryforNon-PecuniaryLossinCorrectiveJustice.Notingthatthegeneralprincipleoftort-lawdamagestraditionallyhasheldthatsuchdamagesshouldrestoretheplaintifftothepositionhewouldhaveoccupiedhadthetortnotoccurred,restitutioinintegrum,Chapmaninvestigateshowandwhythisclassicprinciple,atleastintheparticularcaseofnon-pecuniaryloss,mightbeinconsistentwithmoderntortlawtheories.Compensationtheoristsfromtheleftwouldmostliketopreservescarceeconomicresourcesforthepressingfinancialneedsofvictims,whileeconomictheoristsontherightwouldcompensatenon-pecuniarylossesonlytothelimitedextentthatpersonswouldinsure,themselvesagainstsuchlossesexante.Althoughcorrectivejusticetheory(p.22) wouldseemtorequirefullcompensationforunjustinflictionsofnon-pecuniarylossasmuchasforothertypesoflosses,Chapmanarguesthatcorrectivejustice,althoughinfactrequiringfullcompensationforthepecuniarycostsoffuturecareandfutureearningsloss,doesnotrequirecompensationfornon-pecuniaryloss.AdoptingErnestWeinribsconceptionofcorrectivejustice,whichfocusesupontheinherentcorrelativityofthedefendantsdoingandtheplaintiffssufferingofharm,Chapmanreasonsthatcorrectivejusticeshouldonlycorrectforwrongfullosseswithinthespaceofrights,andthatitshouldnototherwisebeconcernedwithavictimswelfare.Explainingthatmoneydamagessimplycannotrepairthekindofrightsdamagesufferedwhenlossesareofthenon-pecuniarykind,heclaimsthatmoneydamagesinthiscontextcanonlyservetoincreasethevictimswelfareinsomerespectwhichisirrelevanttothewrongfulact.Thus,becausecorrectivejusticedoesnotsupportcompensationforsuchlosses,hemaintainsthatnominaldamagesaloneareappropriateforthistypeofloss.Chapmanfurtherexplainsthattheargumentforverylimiteddamagesforthistypeoflossisbaseduponmoneyslackofutilityitsinabilitytorestoretheplaintiffsspecificwelfarelosswithintheambitofthedefendantswrongdoingaverydifferentmatterfromhowtheplaintiffmightactuallychoosetouseamonetaryaward.HedistinguishestheideathatmoneymayhavenoutilityinrestoringtheplaintiffslossfromMargaretJaneRadinsnotion,basedonhertheoryofcorrectivejusticeasredressratherthanrectification,thatmoneymaybeincommensurablewiththevictimsloss.Chapmanconcludesthattheconceptofthelimitedutilityofmoney,onwhichallcontemporarytorttheoriesseemtobeagreed,precludesawardinganythingbutnominaldamagesfornon-pecuniaryloss.
Oneofthemoredifficultandcontroversialareasoftortdoctrineconcernsthejudicialexclusionofliabilityforeconomiclossesofcertaintypes.Inparticular,courtsandscholarshavelongstruggledtodefinethepropercontextsinwhichthelawoftortsshouldallowrecoveryinnegligenceforpureeconomicloss.Notwithstandingmanyyearsofrigorousscrutiny,thereisstilllittleagreementonthenatureoreventhepossibilityofanunderlyingrationaleforexcludingsuchlossesfromtortrecoveryconsistentwiththeconceptionofnegligenceasdevelopedinthiscentury.InTheBasisforExcludingLiabilityforEconomicLossinTortLaw,PeterBensonboldlyentersthisquagmireofdoctrineandtheory,examiningandorderingthedifferentcategoriesofeconomiclossthroughananalysisthatseekstoremaininternaltothelawbydrawingontheveryprinciplesandconsiderationsthatarepresentinit.Incontrasttoprevailingpolicy-basedapproaches,Benson(followingRawls)proposeswhathecallsapublicbasisofjustificationthatrootstheanalysisofdoctrineinpurelyjuridicalnormativeconsiderations.Hearguesthatthere
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 18 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
isasinglerationalethatexplainswhyeconomiclossclaimsareallowedinsomesituationsbutnot(p.23) inothers.Recoveryisallowed,hecontends,onlywheretheplaintiffsclaimagainstthedefendantsoundsinmisfeasance:itmustrestonlyonsuchinterestswhichtheplaintiffcanvalidlyassertinsomelegallyrecognizedmannerashisown,exclusiveofthedefendant.Onlythen,arguesBenson,willaninterestqualifyasaprotectedinterestforthepurposesoftortlaw.Throughthisanalyticalprism,theeconomiclosscasesmaybeseenasreconcilableonthebasisofafundamentalandpervasivefeatureofthegeneralconceptionofliabilityfornegligencewithoutrecoursetoconsidera-tionsofpolicyorofdistributivejustice.
C.VictimResponsibilityforHarmIttakestwotoTango,andittakesanactorandavictimtomakeatort.Avictimspresenceataplaceandtimewhenheiscollidedintobyanactorisalwaysamatterofthevictimspriorchoices,atleastinpart.Perhapsthevictimwillinglychosetoplacehimselfinadangerousspottoachieveaparticularobjective.Orperhapsthatobjective,orthevictimschoiceforsomeotherreason,orthevictimsmethodofactingtoachievetheobjectivewasabadonebysomemeasure.Thequestionexploredhere,inthisfinalsec-tionofPartIII,ishowthelawoftortsshouldmakethismeasurehowtortlawshoulddetermineifavictimsharm-producingconductwasimproperand,ifso,whetherthatfactshouldrelieveatortiousactorofresponsibility(inwholeorpart)forthevictimsharm.
Turningtheinquiryawayfromtheinjurerandtowardthevictimofanaccidentalinjury,KennethSimonsprobesthefundamentalsofcontributoryvictimfaultformsofdefenseinContributoryNegligence:ConceptualandNormativeIssues.Whileitmayseemobviousthatapersonwhocarelesslystepsintodangershouldhavehisrecoveryfordamagesagainstanegligentactorreducedoreliminatedonthebasisofhisownfault,Simonsfindsthatthegroundsforthatconclusionarefarfromobvious.Understandingtheverynotionofvictimfaultornegligence,inhisview,raisesavarietyofdifficultquestions.First,insayingthatthevictimisatfaultornegligentinfailingtotakeaparticularprecaution,dowemeanthatthevictimshouldhaveactedotherwise,thathisconductwasdeficient,andthatareductioninhisdamagesisonewaytorectifythismoralfailure?Ordoweinsteadbelievethatthevictimhadarightnottotaketheprecaution,butthathisacceptanceofadamagereductionisthelegitimatepriceofexercisingtheright?Onthelatterview,Simonsreasons,thevictimsconductwouldseemtobedevoidoffaultandsomorefairlymightbeviewedasaformofplaintiffsstrictresponsibility.Undereitherview,Simonsexplains,thevictimsdutytousereasonablecareisonlyconditional,inthatitappliesonlyifthevictimchoosestosuetheinjurer.Turningtothesubstantiverationalesforlimitingavictimsrecovery,Simonsconsiderswhetherthoserationalesjustify(p.24) applyingidenticalordistinctcriteriatovictimandinjurernegligence.Fromthisperspective,hefirstexaminestheKantianviewofnegligenceasbasedupontheinjurersunjustifiableegoismandconcludesthatitcannotexplainlimitingthevictimsrecovery.Next,heprobesbeneaththesurfacesymmetryoftheutilitarianHandformulaandfindslurkingthereanumberofproblemsofaggregationthatundermineitscoherencewhenappliedtovictimconduct.Simonsthenexaminesamoralparityapproachwhichhefindsmore
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 19 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
promising,underwhichtheplaintiffisboundtoapplythesamestandardtohimselfastothedefendant.Healsoconsidersaforfeiturerationale,whichwouldjustifytheapplicationofverydifferentcriteriatovictimandinjurernegligence,thenexplorestheeffectofrelaxingtheassumptionthatthevictimposesrisksonlytohimself,andfinallyinspectstherationalesforandimplicationsoflimitingavictimsrecoveryundertheplaintiffsstrictresponsibilityapproach.Simonsconcludesthatthereasonsthatjustifyprovidingthevictimwitharemedyfortheinjurersnegligencedonotsufficetojustifylimitingtheremedyforthevictimsnegligence.
V.FromTortLawtoPhilosophyPassingtheBatonTheessaysinthisvolume(withonenotableexception)arewrittenbylawyerssearchingformeaninginthelawoftorts,lookingforanexplanationandjustificationfortheprinciplesandrulesoftortlawinanotherdiscipline,philosophy.Whilesomeinterbreedingbetweenlawandphilosophyhasoccurredoverthecenturies,bothdisciplineshaveremainedremarkablyinsulareventothisday.Oneofthegreatstrengthsofthehumanintellectisitsabilitythroughreasontoorganizefactsandconceptsintocastle-likestructuresofthemind,structuresthatthemselvescontainnumerousinterconnectedchambersofelegantlyrefinedandever-expandinginterrelationshipsofthought.Butthechambersandespeciallythecastlesofdifferentintellectualdisciplineshavethickwalls,thickenedandreinforcedoverthecenturiesagainstoutsideattack,permittingseparatecommunitiesofscholarstocontinuetoliveandthinkwithinandornamenttheirrespectivechambersandcastlesinisolatedcomfort.ButwhilethistypeofBalkanbuttressingofthoughthasinmanywaysstrengthenedtheinternalintegrityofthoughtwithintheseparatebastionsofdiscipline,theresultinginbreedingspawnsdefectsthatweakenthestructures,sometimessuperficiallybutothertimespenetratinginsidiouslytotheveryfoundationsandintegrityoftheentirecastle.
Bothlawandphilosophyovertheyearsindifferentwayshavebeenguiltyofthistypeofinsularperspective,andatleastthelawhassufferedfromit.Asperhapsistruewithalldisciplines,lawandphilosophybothinmanywayshavelongbeenover-specializedandover-technical,inboth(p.25) theirlanguageandtheirconcepts.Andascloseastortlawoughttobetomoralandpoliticalphilosophy,neitherthelawyersnorthephilosophersknowverymuchabouteachothersdiscipline.Onefunctionofthisvolume,then,maybetohelpthetwodisciplinescomealittlebittogether,inthespecificrealmofthelawoftorts.Theimportantpremisehereisthatbothdisciplinesmaybeenrichedandstrengthenedbylearningfromoneanother.Yetthiscollectioncannotmakeclaimtointerdisciplinarystatusinanyfullsense,foreachessaybutoneiswrittenbyalawyer.39Althougheachessaypurportstobeaphilosophicalstudy,eachiswrittenfromatortlawpointofview,fromtheperspectiveofwhatphilosophycandoforlaw,ofhowthelawcanbenefitfromborrowingthetypeofreflectivethoughtthatbelongstophilosophy.EventhetitleofthisForeword,WhyPhilosophyMatterstoTortLaw,unabashedlymakesthispoint.
Whiletheefforttobringtogetherthelearningofthesetwoseparatedisciplinesisnotatallaneasytask,surelyitisworththeeffort.Thisvolumecontinuestherecentmarchoftort
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 20 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
lawyersintotheforeignlandofphilosophy,ajourneybeguninearnestlessthanaquartercenturyagoandonlyveryrecentlyacquiringanynumbersorsenseofrealdirection.Withafertile(perhapsmilitaristic)imagination,onemightcloseoneseyesandenvisionaplatoonofacademiclawyersmarchingoutoftheCastleofLawacrossthemeadowsandintotheCastleofPhilosophy.Nowthatthelawyer-invadershavesurveyedthephilosophicbootyontheinside,andpickedandchosenaccordingtoeachonestaste,theyhavemarchedbacktotheirownlandstoproclaimhowthephilosophiccuriositiestheyhavepilferedmaybeusedtofortifytheCastleofLaw.
Theessaystothispointinthevolumeoffersuchthoughtsfromtortlawtheoristsonhowphilosophymayhelpdeterminewhattortlawis,whatitshouldbedoing,andhowitmaybetteraccomplishitsobjectives.InthevolumesAfterword,WhatHasPhilosophytoLearnfromTortLaw?,BernardWilliamsturnsaphilosopherseyebackintheotherdirection,withalookathowphilosophymaybenefitfromexaminingthelawoftorts.Williamspostulatesthatlawgenerally,andtortlawinparticular,mightbeofinteresttophilosophersinprovidingalaboratoryforstudyinginstancesofproblem-solvingunderpressure,wherethecommunitymustdecideinapracticalandconclusivewaywhattodoabouttheconsequencesofintentionaloraccidentalharm.Inthismanner,thestrengthofconceptsanddis-tinctionsaretestedbythelawinacrucibleofrealityinawaythatphilosophicalreflectioncannotdoalone.HecharacterizesthisperspectiveasthePicture,thatthelawmightremindphilosophyofrealitybyrevealingdistinctionsrecognizabletocommonsenseunderpressurewheremuchturnsontheoutcome.WilliamsanticipatesthatthePicturemaybesubject(p.26) totwoprincipalobjections.Firstisthatthisviewoverestimatestheeffectsoflegalconceptsappliedbyargumentwithinthelegalprocessthatcasesaredecidedonthebasisofvaluesexternaltothelaw,suchasutilityorwealthmaximization,andthatthelegalconceptsexplicitlyapplied(suchasnegligenceandproximatecausation)aremerelydecorativerationalizations.ThesecondobjectionisthatthePictureunderestimatestheseparatenessoftheconceptsandprocessesofthelawfromcommonsense,suchthatthelawsspecialistwaysofthinkingaretooremovedfromthekindsofextra-legalthoughtofinteresttophilosophytoprovideinsightsinthislatterrealm.
WilliamsfindsthatneitherobjectionisfataltothePicture,fortortlawnecessarilyforcestheresolutionofissuesoffaultandresponsibility,particularlyintermsoftheagentsstateofmindandthedirectnessoftheconnectionbetweenthatstateofmindandtheresultingharmfulconsequences.Whileheobjectstoattemptstogroundeverydaymoralityinethicaltheory(especiallyinaunifiedmonistictheory),heacknowledgestheimportancetoaliberalsocietyofexplainingtheapplicationofpower,whichincludesacourtsapplicationoftortlawrulestoresolvedisputes.Forthispurpose,thetheorygeneratedbyphilosophicalreflectionmayhelpbothexplainandimprovethelaw.Althoughthiswayoflookingatthematterlargelyturnsitbackaround,intooneofhowphilosophycanhelpthelaw,Williamsreasonsthatthisbacksideofhisquestioninheresinphilosophysexplorationofwhatthelawistryingtodo.Findingnotionsofresponsibilityandthevoluntary(includingTonyHonorsnotionofoutcomeresponsibility)interestingtophilosophy,hecautionsagainstpushingtoohardfordeepandadequatetheoriesofthe
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 21 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
voluntaryandmoralresponsibility.WilliamsconcludesthatthereistruthinthePicture,thatthelawprovidesinsightsintotheconceptsofphilosophyunderextremeconditions,andheobservestheimportanceofarrivingatanadequatetheory(providedbylawandphilosophytogether)ofhowphilosophicalconceptsworkinlaw.
BernardWilliamsessayservesmorethanasadecorativebookendfromamemberofadifferentdisciplineforavolumeofessaysabouttheoriesofthelawofprivatewrongs.Surelyitdoesprovideimportantclosinginsightsofinteresttolegalscholarsonthereciprocalinterestsofthedisciplineofphilosophyinvokedbyeachofthelawyerswritingabouttortlawtheory.Butevenmoreimportantly,itservesasanopeningoffertothephilosopherstoenterthefray,tojoinbattlewiththelawyers,andengagethelawoftorts.AsWilliamsmakesclear,focusingontherelationshipbetweenphi-losophyandtortlawrevealsnumerouswaysinwhichphilosophycancometotherescueofthisareaofthelaw.Andwhiletortlawmightnotrequirerescue40byphilosophers,itcertainlycouldmakegooduseofit.Manyofthephilosophicalconceptsinvokedbythelawyersinthisvolume,suchas(p.27) notionsoffreewill,utility,andtruth,havebeenrejectedbymanymodernphilosophersastheoreticallysuspectandoutmoded.If,indeed,suchconceptshavenophilosophicvaluefortortlawproblems,iftheycannotmeaningfullyhelplawyersunderstandhowthecontentoftort-lawdoctrineshouldbeframed,thensurelyitisthephilosophersjobtoprovethispointandtoteachthelawyershowinsteadtoaddressthekindsofissuestheyconfrontinthelawoftorts.
OnemaysenseacertainskepticisminBernardWilliamsessayaboutthestrengthoftheunderlyingrelationshipbetweenlawandphilosophy,acertainacceptanceoftheseparatenessofthetwodisciplines;thereisnopersuasiveevidenceintheessaythatheperceivesanimportantfoundationallinkbetweenthetwo.Thiscontrastsquitesharplywiththeperspectivesofmostofthelawyerswritinginthevolumewhoeitherargueexplicitlyorpostulateimplicitlythatthelawoftortsisconstructeduponphilosophicalfoundations.Perhapsthisismerelywishfulthinkingofthedoersofashallowdisciplinelawhopingtogivehistoricalandintellectuallegitimacytoacraftthathasservedformostofitsexistenceaslittlemorethanakindofwindowdressingtogussyuptherawexerciseofpower.Ormaybethetortlawyerssoonerthanthephilosophershavesensedafundamentalinterrelationshipthatreallydoesexistbetweenthetheoreticalandpracticaldisciplinesofhowpeopleoughttoandmusttreatoneanotherintheworld.Almostalltheessaysinthisvolumearecommittedtothelatterview,andonemaysenseanimplicit(perhapsbegrudging)discoveryofatleastalit-tleofitstruthintheprogressionofanalysisinWilliamsessay.
Whetherthesuspicionsofmanymodernphilosophersaboutthevalidityandusefulnessofmoraltheorizingderivemerelyfromthetrendsofskepticismandnihilismpervadingmanydisciplinesinthetwentiethcentury,orwhethertheyderiveinsteadfromtruevacuousnessinsuchconcepts,isdifficulttoknow.Butknowwemust,iflaworphilosophyinactionistounderstanditself.Theimportanceofthecurrentstudyisthatsuchphilosophicalsuspicions,justasthetortlawyersgrandtheories,canbetestedwithspecialreliability,asWilliamsargues,inthereal-worldlaboratoryofthelawoftorts.More
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 22 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
thananyotherareaofthelaw,tortlawoffersexamplesofhowpeopleshouldandshouldnottreateachotherexamplesfromnearlyeverycontextofharmfulhumaninteraction.Fromsuchmyriadsituations,tortlawalsoraisesimportantissuesofhowthecommunityshoulduseitspowertorespond,throughtheprivatelawofcivilwrongs,tocomplaintsofpersonshurtbyotherhumanbeings.Howthelawoftortsdealswithsuchissues,andhowitoughttodealwiththem,certainlyshouldbemattersofinteresttophilosophers.
Surelystumbling,thetortlawyershaveruntheopeninglap,andthebatonhasnowbeenpassed.
Notes:(1)OnesuchtravellerwasHarvardLawSchooldean,JamesBarrAmes:[T]hespiritofreformwhichduringthelastsixhundredyearshasbeenbringingoursystemoflawmoreandmoreintoharmonywithmoralprincipleshasnotyetachieveditsperfectwork.ItisworthwhiletorealizethegreatethicaladvanceoftheEnglishlawinthepast,ifonlyasanencouragementtoeffortforfurtherimprovement:JamesBarrAmes,LawandMorals,22HARV.LREV.97,113(1908).ConsideralsotheobservationofProfessorIsaacs:Ourprogresshasbeenmarkedintwowaysbythehighermoralnotionstowhichweseektoadaptourlaw,andbyagreaterabilitytoadaptthelawtoanygivenmoralnotion:NathanIsaacs,FaultandLiability,31HARV.LREV.954,978(1918).Otherscholarsalsoexploredthedepthsoftortlawjustificationsalongtheway.See,e.g.,ClarenceMorris,RoughJusticeandSomeUtopianIdeas,24HARV.LREV.730(1929);GlanvilieWilliams,TheAimsoftheLawofTort,4CURRENTLEGALPROB.137(1951);Rev.FrancisE.Lucey,LiabilityWithoutFaultandtheNaturalLaw,24TENN.LREV.952(1957);RobertE.Keeton,ConditionalFaultintheLawofTorts,72HARV.LREV.401(1959).
(2)R.H.Coase,TheProblemofSocialCost,3J.L.&ECON.1(1960).
(3)GUIDOCALABRESI,THECOSTSOFACCIDENTS(1970);GuidoCalabresi,SomeThoughtsonRiskDistributionandtheLawofTorts,70YALEL.J.499(1961).SeealsoGuidoCalabresi&DouglasMelamed,PropertyRules,LiabilityRules,andInalienability:OneViewoftheCathedral,85HARV.L.REV.1089(1972).
(4)C.RobertMorris,Jr.,EnterpriseLiabilityandtheActuarialProcessTheInsignificanceofForesight,70YALEL.J.554(1961).
(5)RichardA.Posner,ATheoryofNegligence,1J.LEGALSTUD.29(1972).Scholarshiponthemoralandlegaldimensionsofeconomictheorydeepenedinthe1970s.See,e.g.,KENNETHJ.ARROW,THELIMITSOFORGANIZATION(1974);RICHARDA.POSNER,ECONOMICANALYSISOFLAW(1972).
(6)See,e.g.,WilliamM.Landes&RichardA.Posner,ThePositiveEconomicTheoryofTortLaw,15GA.L.REV.851(1981).CulminatingperhapsinWILLIAMM.LANDES&RICHARDA.POSNER,THEECONOMICSTRUCTUREOFTORTLAW(1987);STEPHENSHAVELL,ECONOMICANALYSISOFACCIDENTLAW(1987).
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 23 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(7)Notethecomplaintsofacoupleofscholarsatthetimethatthelawhas"gonea-whoringafterfalsegods"andthatalloftheravingaboutlossabsorptionhasblindedlawyerstotheobviousconcernoftortlawwithrightandwrong:EdwardVeitch&DavidMiers,AssaultontheLawofTort,38M.L.R.139,1423(1975)(quotingWeir).SeeEdwardVeitch,BookReview,22NIR.LQ560,563(1971)(complainingthattorttheoristsasagrouphavebeenledbythenosebyeconomiststoolong).
(8)5HARV.L.REV.537(1972).
(9)2J.LEGALSTUD.151(1973),followedbyhisDefensesandSubsequentPleasinaSystemofStrictLiability,3J.LEGALSTUD.165(1974).
(10)71J.PHIL.473(1974).Colemanpublishedseveralmoreessaysontorttheoryinthe1970s,includingJulesL.Coleman,TheMoralityofStrictTortLiability,18WM.&MARYL.REV.259(1976).
(11)DuringwhichtimeGlanvilleWilliamsandB.A.HepplepublishedFOUNDATIONSOFTHELAWOFTORT(1976),MarshallShapopublishedTHEDUTYTOACTTORTLAW,POWER,&PUBLICPOLICY(1977),andGuidoCalabresiandPhilipBobbittpublishedTRAGICCHOICES(1978).SeealsoJohnBorgo,CausalParadigmsinTortLaw,8J.LEGALSTUD.419(1979);RichardA.Epstein,NuisanceLaw:CorrectiveJusticeanditsUtilitarianConstraints,8J.LEGALSTUD.49(1979).
(12)9J.LEGALSTUD.27(1980).SeealsoIzhakEnglard,CanStrictLiabilityBeGeneralized?,2OXFORDJ.LEGALSTUD.245(1982).
(13)90YALEL.J.247(1980).Alsoin1980wasDavidG.Owen,RethinkingthePoliciesofStrictProductsLiability,33VAND.L.REV.681(1980),andWilliamH.Rodgers,Jr.,NegligenceReconsidered:TheRoleofRationalityinTortTheory,54So.CAL.L.REV.1(1980).ThenextyearwitnessedGaryT.Schwartz,TheVitalityofNegligenceandtheEthicsofStrictLiability,15GA.L.REV.963(1981),and1982sawPeterCane,JusticeandJustificationsforTortLiability,2OXFORDJ.LEGALSTUD.30(1982).
(14)JulesL.Coleman,MoralTheoriesofTorts:TheirScopeandLimits,PartsI&II,1LAW&PHIL.371(1982);2LAW&PHIL.5(1983).SeealsoJulesColeman,CorrectiveJusticeandWrongfulGain,11J.LEGALSTUD.421(1982).
(15)ErnestJ.Weinrib,TowardaMoralTheoryofNegligenceLaw,2LAW&PHIL.37(1983).
(16)GeorgeP.Fletcher,TheSearchforSynthesisinTortTheory,2LAW&PHIL.63(1983).
(17)ValuesintheLawofTort:ASymposium,PartI,1LAW&PHIL.369(1982)(withanIntroductionbyMichaelBaylesandBruceChapman,andessaysbyJulesColeman,TheodoreBenditt,JosephSteiner,andS.C.CovalandJ.C.Smith);PartII,2LAW&PHIL.3(1983)(withanIntroductionbyMichaelBaylesandBruceChapman,andessaysby
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 24 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
JulesColeman,ErnestWeinrib,GeorgeFletcher,andRobertPrichardandAlanBrudner).
(18)See,e.g.,StevenD.Smith,RhetoricandRationalityintheLawofNegligence,69MINN.L.REV.277(1984).
(19)See,e.g.,RONALDDWORKIN,LAWSEMPIRE(1986)ch.8;SymposiumonCausationintheLawofTorts,63CHI.-KENTL.REV.397(1987)(withaForewordbyMarioRizzo,articlesbyErnestWeinrib,JulesColeman,JudithJarvisThomson,MichaelMoore,RobertCooter,RichardWright,MarkKelman,AlanSchwartz,andanAfterwordbyRichardEpstein).Therewereaswellanumberofimportantbooksandarticlesontorttheorythatappliedphilosophicalprinciplestotortlawproblems,butlessformally.Forexample,seeMarshallS.ShaposTOWARDSAJURISPRUDENCEOFINJURY:THECONTINUINGCREATIONOFASYSTEMOFSUBSTANTIVEJUSTICEINAMERICANTORTLAW(1984)(reporttotheABA),andGuidoCalabresisIDEALS,BELIEFS,ATTITUDES,ANDTHELAW(1985).
(20)JOHNRAWLS,ATHEORYOFJUSTICE(1971).
(21)ROBERTNOZICK,ANARCHY,STATE,ANDUTOPIA(1974).
(22)See,e.g.,JOELFEINBERG,DOINGANDDESERVING(1970);J.Feinberg,HarmandSelf-interest,inLAW,MORALITY,ANDSOCIETYESSAYSINHONOUROFH.L.A.HART(P.M.S.Hacker&J.Raz(eds.),1977),285.
(23)See,e.g.,JUDITHJARVISTHOMSON,ACTSANDOTHEREVENTS(1977);JUDITHJARVISTHOMSON,RIGHTS,RESTITUTION,ANDRISK(1986);JUDITHJARVISTHOMSON,THEREALMOFRIGHTS(1990).
(24)Alsoduringthe1980s,tortlawwascritiquedfromavarietyofperspectivesincludingMarxism,theCriticalLegalStudiesmovement,pragmatism,andfeminism.See,e.g.,THEPOLITICSOFLAW(DavidKairys(ed.),1982);RichardL.Abel,ASocialistApproachtoRisk,41MD.L.REV.695(1982);LeslieBender,ALawyersPrimeronFeministTheoryandTort,38J.LEGALEDUC.3(1988);DavidM.Engel,TheOvenBirdsSong:Insiders,Outsiders,andPersonalInjuriesinanAmericanCommunity,18LAW&SOCYREV.551(1984);DuncanKennedy,DistributiveandPaternalistMotivesinContractandTortLaw,withSpecialReferencetoCompulsoryTermsandUnequalBargainingPower,41MD.L.REV.563(1982);StephenD.Sugarman,DoingAwaywithTortLaw,73CAL.L.REV.555(1985),elegantlycritiquedinDavidG.Owen,DeterrenceandDesertinTort,73CAL.L.REV.665(1985).
(25)JULESL.COLEMAN,RISKSANDWRONGS(1992).
(26)15HARV.J.L.&PUB.POLY621(1992)(withaForewordbyLarryAlexanderandarticlesbyJulesColeman,MargaretJaneRadin,RandyBarnett,JeanHampton,DavidGauthier,StevenWalt,EmilySherwin,KennethSimons,ChristopherWonnell,RichardCraswell,AlanSchwartz,RichardArneson,StephenPerry,andClaireFinkelstein).
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 25 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(27)77IOWAL.REV.403(1992)(withanIntroductionbyKenKress,anarticleandcommentbyErnestWeinrib,andarticlesbyJulesColeman,StephenPerry,PeterBenson,RichardWright,AnitaAllenandMariaMorales,DennisPatterson,JohnStick,RichardHyland,MarlenaCorcoran,andStevenHeyman).
(28)16HARV.J.L.&PUB.POLY579(1993)(withaForewordbyDennisPatterson,anarticleandresponsebyErnestWeinrib,andcommentsbyStephenPerry,JeanLove,andKenKress).
(29)TORTTHEORY(KenCooper-Stephenson&ElaineGibson(eds.),1993)(withessaysbythefollowingCanadianlegalscholars:ErnestWeinrib,StephenPerry,KenCooper-Stephenson,BruceChapman,J.C.Smith,LucieLiger,ElaineGibson,KateSutherland,TedDecoste,AllanHutchinsonandRobertMaisey,DanielJutras,LakshmanMarasinghe,DavidCohen,andBruceFeldthusen).
(30)IZHAKENOLARD,THEPHILOSOPHYOFTORTLAW(1993).
(31)Englardalsoexaminesspecificareasoftortlawpractice,addressingphilosophicissuesinsuchareasasdefamation,informedconsent,punitivedamages,economicloss,andmasstorts.Importantlyintermsofthepresentvolume,Englardoutlinesinhisbookthepluralisticcomplementaritytheoryoftortlawwhichhefurtherdevelopshere.
(32)ERNESTJ.WEINRIB,THEIDEAOFPRIVATELAW(1995).
(33)Epistemology,thephilosophyofknowledge,helpsinamorelimitedfashiontoinformtheconnectionbetweenriskandresponsibility,asStephenPerryexplainsinhisessayinPartIII.
(34)RichardA.Posner,Utilitarianism,Economics,andLegalTheory,8J.LEGALSTUD.103(1979);RichardA.Posner,TheEthicalandPoliticalBasisoftheEfficiencyNorminCommonLawAdjudication,8HOFSTRAL.REV.487(1980).HecontinuedtheinquiryinRICHARDA.POSNER,THEECONOMICSOFJUSTICE(1981),chs.3&4andRICHARDA.POSNER,THEPROBLEMSOFJURISPRUDENCE(1990),chs.12&13,andinvestigatedtheparticulardomainoftortlawinWILLIAMM.LANDES&RICHARDA.POSNER,THEECONOMICSTRUCTUREOFTORTLAW(1987).
(35)IZHAKENGLARD,THEPHILOSOPHYOFTORTLAW(1993).
(36)JohnB.Attanasio,ThePrincipleofAggregateAutonomyandtheCalabresianApproachtoProductsLiability,74VA.L.REV.677(1988).
(37)Theworkisnowinitssecondedition.H.L.A.HART&TONYHONORE,CAUSATIONINTHELAW(2dedn1985).
(38)RichardWright,CausationinTortLaw,73CAL.L.REV.1735(1985).
(39)Althoughanumberoftheauthorshavereceivedformaltraininginphilosophy,allbut
Foreword Why Philosophy Matters to Tort Law
Page 26 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
BernardWilliamsareteachersofthelaw.
(40)Yaniav.Bigan,155A.2d343(Pa.1959);Note,AComparativeStudy,52COLUM.L.REV.631(1952)(examininggeneralno-duty-to-rescueruleofAnglo-Americantortlaw).
Accessbroughttoyouby: PontificiaUniversidadCatolicadelPeru(PUCP)