|
|
Article: The spurious relationship between moral blameworthiness and liability for negligence.
- Article from:
- Melbourne University Law Review
- Article date:
- August 1, 2004
- Author:
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2004 Melbourne University Law Review. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
[Traditional learning maintains that liability for negligence is ultimately premised on notions of moral blameworthiness. It is thought that the legal principles which define the scope of negligence loosely conform to such notions. This article challenges that view. While there is a certain amount of evidence which supports the conventional view, it is argued that this evidence is eclipsed by many important instances where the tort of negligence is insensitive to considerations of moral blameworthiness.]
CONTENTS
I Introduction
II Evidence in Support of the Conventional View
III Departures from Moral Blameworthiness
A Negligence Is a Type of Conduct ...
Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles:
|
|
Article: Not Quite the Conventional View; Some Surprising ...
The Washington Post;
April 6, 2006 ;
700+ words
...The basic outline of Fairfax County's transformation is well known: The county's job base has exploded in size, its population has grown far more diverse and its housing market has boomed. So when the Board of Supervisors commissioned an in-depth report on what the future holds for the county, few
|
|