Atnaujinkite slapukų nuostatas

El. knyga: Tort Law Defences [Hart e-books]

(University of Oxford, UK)
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
  • Hart e-books
  • Kaina: 89,98 €*
  • * this price gives unlimited concurrent access for unlimited time
Tort Law DefencesDidesnis paveikslėlis
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
Wiley OnlineMore info about Hart e-books
The law of torts recognizes many defenses to liability. While some of these defenses have been explored in detail, scant attention has been given to the theoretical foundations of defenses generally. In particular, no serious attempt has been made to explain how defenses relate to each other or to the torts to which they pertain. This book reduces the size of this substantial gap in the understanding of tort law. Principally, the book does so by developing a taxonomy of defenses. It argues that all defenses should be sorted into the following three categories: absent element defenses, justification defenses, and public policy defenses. Absent element defenses are denials by the defendant of one or more of the elements of the tort in which the claimant sues. Justification defenses are defenses that are available where the defendant acted reasonably in committing a tort. Public policy defenses are defenses that relieve the defendant of liability even though he committed a tort without justification. The book shows that much can be learned about a given defense (as well as defenses in general) from the way in which they are classified within this system. It is a fresh and original study which will be of interest to all those working in the field of tort law. (Series: Hart Studies in Private Law - Vol. 8)

The law of torts recognizes many defenses to liability. While some of these defenses have been explored in detail, scant attention has been given to the theoretical foundations of defenses generally. In particular, no serious attempt has been made to explain how defenses relate to each other or to the torts to which they pertain. This book reduces the size of this substantial gap in the understanding of tort law. Principally, the book does so by developing a taxonomy of defenses. It argues that all defenses should be sorted into the following three categories: absent element defenses, justification defenses, and public policy defenses. Absent element defenses are denials by the defendant of one or more of the elements of the tort in which the claimant sues. Justification defenses are defenses that are available where the defendant acted reasonably in committing a tort. Public policy defenses are defenses that relieve the defendant of liability even though he committed a tort without justification. The book shows that much can be learned about a given defense (as well as defenses in general) from the way in which they are classified within this system. It is a fresh and original study which will be of interest to all those working in the field of tort law. (Series: Hart Studies in Private Law)

Daugiau informacijos

Runner-up for Society of Legal Scholars Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship 2014 (UK).
Preface vii
Acknowledgements ix
Table of Cases xxi
Table of Statutes xxxvii
Table of Delegated Legislation xliii
Table of Conventions xliv
Table of Model Codes and Restatements xlv
1 Introduction 1(28)
1.1 Tort Law Defences
1(1)
1.2 What is a 'Defence'?
1(6)
1.2.1 Multiple Meanings
1(4)
1.2.1.1 To include denials of elements of the tort in which the claimant sues
2(1)
1.2.1.2 Liability-defeating rules that are external to the elements of the claimant's action
2(1)
1.2.1.3 Principles that diminish the claimant's relief
3(1)
1.2.1.4 Rules in respect of which the defendant carries the onus of proof
3(2)
1.2.1.5 The final element of the claimant's cause of action
5(1)
1.2.2 The Meaning Given to the Word 'Defence' in this Book
5(2)
1.3 The Neglect of Defences
7(4)
1.4 Why are Defences Worth Investigating?
11(2)
1.5 The Temporal Logic of Tort Law
13(1)
1.6 Labels in Tort Law
14(3)
1.6.1 The Purpose of Labels
15(1)
1.6.2 On What Basis are Labels Selected?
16(1)
1.7 Complete Defences and Partial Defences
17(1)
1.8 Who Can Raise Defences?
18(1)
1.8.1 Insurers
18(1)
1.8.2 The Court
19(1)
1.9 Multiple Defences
19(1)
1.10 Scope of the Book
20(4)
1.10.1 Tort Law
20(1)
1.10.2 Equitable Wrongs
21(2)
1.10.3 Breach of Contract
23(1)
1.10.4 Conclusion
24(1)
1.11 Jurisdictions
24(1)
1.12 Methodology
25(2)
1.12.1 Taxonomic Analysis
25(1)
1.12.2 Criminal Law Theorising Regarding Defences
25(2)
1.13 Outline of the Argument
27(2)
2 Torts and Defences 29(17)
2.1 Introduction
29(1)
2.2 Is the Distinction Exhaustive?
29(5)
2.2.1 Standing Rules
30(1)
2.2.2 Affirmative Answers to Defences
31(3)
2.2.3 Conclusion
34(1)
2.3 Defending Defences
34(11)
2.3.1 Mere Assertions
35(1)
2.3.2 An Inadequate Rationale
35(1)
2.3.3 The Efficient Administration of Justice
36(1)
2.3.4 Procedural Justice
36(1)
2.3.5 Relative Value of the Parties' Interests
37(2)
2.3.6 The Rule of Law: Duties and Privileges
39(1)
2.3.7 Promoting Rationality Judicial Reasoning
39(1)
2.3.8 Harmonisation With' Other Departments of the Law of Obligations
40(1)
2.3.9 Discussion
40(8)
2.3.9.1 Arguments that depend upon the allocation of the onus of proof
41(1)
2.3.9.2 Is the distinction between torts and defences intrinsically significant?
41(3)
2.3.9.3 Allocation of issues
44(1)
2.4 Conclusion
45(1)
3 Denials 46(29)
3.1 Introduction
46(2)
3.2 Denials of the Act Element
48(1)
3.2.1 Involuntariness
48(1)
3.3 Denials of a Fault Element
49(9)
3.3.1 Involuntariness
49(1)
3.3.2 Infancy
50(1)
3.3.3 Insanity
51(1)
3.3.4 Intoxication
52(1)
3.3.5 Inevitable Accident
53(1)
3.3.6 Act of God
54(1)
3.3.7 Mistake
55(1)
3.3.8 Voluntary Assumption of Risk
55(3)
3.4 Denials of the Causation Element
58(4)
3.4.1 Inevitable Accident
58(1)
3.4.2 Act of God
58(1)
3.4.3 Act of Third Party
59(1)
3.4.4 Claimant Default
60(1)
3.4.5 Voluntary Assumption of Risk
60(1)
3.4.6 Illegality
61(1)
3.4.7 Novus Actus Interveniens
62(1)
3.5 Denials of the Damage Element
62(3)
3.5.1 Truth
62(3)
3.6 Denials of Other Elements
65(8)
3.6.1 Consent
65(3)
3.6.2 Prescription
68(1)
3.6.3 Exclusion of Liability by Contract or Notice
69(1)
3.6.4 Voluntary Assumption of Risk
70(1)
3.6.5 Illegality
71(1)
3.6.6 Contributory Negligence
71(1)
3.6.7 Truth
72(1)
3.6.8 Common Enemy Rule
73(1)
3.7 Conclusion
73(2)
4 A Taxonomy of Tort Law Defences 75(30)
4.1 Introduction
75(1)
4.2 The Taxonomy
76(1)
4.3 Challenges to the Taxonomy
76(28)
4.3.1 Justifications
76(6)
4.3.1.1 Denials of wrongdoing or explanations for wrongdoing?
76(4)
4.3.1.2 Does tort law accept pleas of justification?
80(2)
4.3.2 Excuses
82(19)
4.3.2.1 Introduction
82(1)
4.3.2.2 Excuses are assertions of responsibility
83(2)
4.3.2.3 Justifications and excuses
85(1)
4.3.2.4 Fletcher's analysis
86(2)
4.3.2.5 Provocation duress and excessive self-defence
88(2)
4.3.2.6 Mistaken belief in the existence of justifying circumstances
90(7)
4.3.2.7 Defective motive
97(4)
4.3.2.8 Conclusion
101(1)
4.3.3 Denials of Responsibility
101(3)
4.3.3.1 Insanity
101(2)
4.3.3.2 Infancy
103(1)
4.3.3.3 Unfitness to plead
103(1)
4.3.4 Public Policy Defences
104(1)
4.4 Conclusion
104(1)
5 Applying the Taxonomy 105(31)
5.1 Introduction g
g105
5.2 Justification Defences
105(17)
5.2.1 Private Justifications
106(8)
5.2.1.1 Self-defence
106(2)
5.2.1.2 Defence of one's property
108(1)
5.2.1.3 Abatement
108(1)
5.2.1.4 Recapture of land
109(1)
5.2.1.5 Recapture of chattels
109(1)
5.2.1.6 Distress
110(1)
5.2.1.7 Qualified privilege
110(2)
5.2.1.8 Innocent dissemination
112(1)
5.2.1.9 Consent
113(1)
5.2.2 Public Justifications
114(8)
5.2.2.1 Public necessity
114(2)
5.2.2.2 Defence of another person
116(1)
5.2.2.3 Defence of another's property
116(1)
5.2.2.4 Arrest
117(1)
5.2.2.5 Discipline
117(1)
5.2.2.6 Responsible journalism
118(1)
5.2.2.7 Medical treatment
119(1)
5.2.2.8 Justification
119(2)
5.2.2.9 Statutory authority
121(1)
5.3 Public Policy Defences
122(13)
5.3.1 Public Policy Defences That Arise at the Time of the Tort
122(8)
5.3.1.1 Judicial process immunities
122(1)
5.3.1.2 Report of court proceedings
123(1)
5.3.1.3 Parliamentary and executive privilege
123(1)
5.3.1.4 Diplomatic consular and related immunities
124(1)
5.3.1.5 Foreign State immunity
124(1)
5.3.1.6 Act of State
124(1)
5.3.1.7 Trade union immunity
125(1)
5.3.1.8 Crown immunity
125(1)
5.3.1.9 Honest comment
126(1)
5.3.1.10 Illegality at common law
126(1)
5.3.1.11 Statutory illegality defences
127(1)
5.3.1.12 Defunct defences
128(2)
5.3.2 Public Policy Defences That Arise After the Tort
130(15)
5.3.2.1 Limitation bars
130(1)
5.3.2.2 Res judicata
131(1)
5.3.2.3 Abuse of process
131(1)
5.3.2.4 Contract of settlement
132(1)
5.3.2.5 Release
132(1)
5.3.2.6 Offer to make amends
133(1)
5.3.2.7 Prior criminal proceedings
133(1)
5.3.2.8 Bankruptcy
133(1)
5.3.2.9 Reportage
134(1)
5.3.2.10 Death
134(1)
5.4 Conclusion
135(1)
6 Implications 136(15)
6.1 Introduction
136(1)
6.2 Unwanted Side-effects
136(2)
6.3 Burden of Pleading
138(1)
6.4 Burden of Proof
138(1)
6.5 Permissible Vagueness
139(1)
6.6 Defendant's Knowledge of the Material Facts
140(1)
6.7 The Relevance of the Defendant's Motive
141(2)
6.8 Benefiting from a Defence Enjoyed by a Confederate
143(1)
6.9 Invocation by the Court
144(1)
6.10 Bad Character Evidence
145(1)
6.11 Non-implications
145(5)
6.11.1 Liability for Resisting the Conduct of an Aggressor
146(1)
6.11.2 Vicarious Liability
147(1)
6.11.3 Costs
147(1)
6.11.4 The tribunal
148(1)
6.11.5 Defendant Causing the Conditions of his Own Defence
148(1)
6.11.6 Context Sensitivity
149(1)
6.12 Summary
150(1)
7 Rival Taxonomies 151(13)
7.1 Introduction
151(1)
7.2 A Derived System of Classification
151(1)
7.3 General Defences and Special Defences
152(1)
7.4 Cane's System
153(2)
7.5 Wigmore's System
155(2)
7.6 The Division Adopted by the Restatement (Second) of Torts
157(1)
7.7 Defences That Apply Immediately and Delayed-onset Defences
158(1)
7.8 Dobbs's System
159(1)
7.9 Bipolar and Non-bipolar Defences
160(1)
7.10 Goldberg and Zipursky's System (I)
161(1)
7.11 Goldberg and Zipursky's System (II)
162(1)
7.12 Conclusion
163(1)
8 Denials of Responsibility 164(29)
8.1 Introduction
164(1)
8.2 Unpacking the Concept Of Basic Responsibility
165(1)
8.3 Should Insanity Be a Tort Defence?
166(18)
8.3.1 The Case Against Recognition
167(16)
8.3.1.1 The causation argument
167(2)
8.3.1.2 The fraud argument
169(3)
8.3.1.3 The imported difficulties argument
172(2)
8.3.1.4 The unsatisfactory evidence argument
174(1)
8.3.1.5 The deterrence argument
174(2)
8.3.1.6 The avoidance and deinstitutionalisation arguments
176(3)
8.3.1.7 The goal of tort law argument
179(1)
8.3.1.8 The self-support argument
180(1)
8.3.1.9 The distributive justice argument
180(1)
8.3.1.10 The justified expectations argument
181(1)
8.3.1.11 The price for membership of society argument
182(1)
8.3.1.12 The consistency argument
182(1)
8.3.1.13 The resistance and asset recovery argument
182(1)
8.3.2 The Case for Recognition
183(1)
8.3.2.1 The free will paradigm argument
183(1)
8.3.2.2 The sanction argument'
184(1)
8.3.3 Conclusion
184(1)
8.4 Should Infancy Be a Tort Defence?
184(2)
8.4.1 The Case Against Recognition
184(1)
8.4.2 The Case for Recognition
185(1)
8.4.3 Conclusion
186(1)
8.5 Should Unfitness to Plead Be a Tort Defence?
186(4)
8.5.1 The Case Against Recognition
187(1)
8.5.1.1 The repugnant consequences argument
187(1)
8.5.1.2 The party autonomy argument
188(1)
8.5.2 The Case for Recognition
188(2)
8.5.2.1 The fairness argument
189(1)
8.5.2.2 The decisional rectitude argument
189(1)
8.5.3 Conclusion
190(1)
8.6 Further Questions
190(2)
8.6.1 Implications Of a Defence being a Denial of Responsibility
190(1)
8.6.2 The Priority Thesis
191(1)
8.7 Conclusion
192(1)
9 Future Directions 193(20)
9.1 Statutes and Defences
193(5)
9.1.1 Legislative Techniques
193(2)
9.1.2 Reasons for the Focus of Legislatures on Defences
195(1)
9.1.3 The Balkanisation of the Law of Defences
195(1)
9.1.4 Challenges Created by the Statutorification of Defences
196(2)
9.2 Reforming the Law of Tort Defences
198(3)
9.2.1 Coherent Development
198(1)
9.2.2 Certainty in Classification
199(1)
9.2.3 Creation of Defences versus Abolition of Defences
200(1)
9.3 Interactional Effects
201(10)
9.3.1 Interactions Between the Elements of Torts and Defences
201(1)
9.3.2 Interactions Between Defences
202(1)
9.3.3 Interaction with the Apportionment Legislation
202(2)
9.3.3.1 Oblique impact
202(2)
9.3.3.2 Are complete defences anomalous?
204(1)
9.3.4 Interaction with Criminal Law Defences
204(2)
9.3.5 Interaction with the European Convention on Human Rights
206(5)
9.3.5.1 Impact to date
207(1)
9.3.5.2 Potential future impact
208(3)
9.4 A Taxonomy of Defences to Civil Liability
211(2)
Index of Authors 213(2)
Index 215
James Goudkamp is a Fellow of Keble College, Oxford, and an Associate Professor in the Oxford Law Faculty. He holds or has held visiting positions at Harvard Law School, the National University of Singapore, the University of Western Australia and the University of Wollongong.
Pastovi nuoroda: https://www.kriso.lt/db/9781782253501_pe.html
Raktažodžiai: