The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.

This book adopts a novel approach to resolving the present difficulties experienced by the courts in imposing strict liability for the tort of another. It looks beyond the traditional classifications of 'vicarious liability' and 'liability for breach of a non-delegable duty of care' and, for the first time, seeks to explain all instances of strict liability for the tort of another in terms of the various relationships in which the courts impose such liability. The book shows that, despite appearances, there is a unifying feature to the various relationships in which the courts currently impose strict liability for the tort of another. That feature is authority. Whenever the courts impose strict liability for the tort of another, the defendant is either vested with authority over the person who committed a tort against the claimant or has vested or conferred a form of authority upon that person in respect of the claimant. This book uses this feature of authority to construct a new expositive framework within which strict liability for the tort of another can be understood.

The imposition of strict liability in tort law is controversial, and its theoretical foundations are the object of vigorous debate. Why do or should we impose strict liability on employers for the torts committed by their employees, or on a person for the harm caused by their children, animals, activities, or things? In responding to this type of questions, legal actors rely on a wide variety of justifications. Justifying Strict Liability explores, in a comparative perspective, the most significant arguments that are put forward to justify the imposition of strict liability in four legal systems, two common law, England and the United States, and two civil law, France and Italy. These justifications include: risk, accident avoidance, the 'deep pockets' argument, loss-spreading, victim protection, reduction in administrative costs, and individual responsibility. By looking at how these arguments are used across the four legal systems, this book considers a variety of patterns which characterise the reasoning on strict liability. The book also assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance in the four jurisdictions and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which inspire strict liability and tort law more generally. Overall, the book seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the justifications for its imposition, and to enhance our understanding of the different tort cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1951.

"The Most Important Treatise on Criminal Law Produced by American Legal Scholarship" First published to great acclaim in 1947, Hall's General Principles of Criminal Law is one of the undisputed classics in its field. It provides more than a broad overview. Drawing on his expertise in jurisprudence and the work of the legal realists, it analyzes the principles that comprise criminal activity with an emphasis on its creation and definition by officials. This process is explored in the chapters on criminology, criminal theory and penal theory and, in more specific terms, the chapters on legality, mens rea, harm, causation, punishment, strict liability, ignorance and mistake, necessity and coercion, mental disease, intoxication and criminal attempt. "For many years, our standard work on criminal law has been Bishop's. First published in 1856, Bishop's is the only American book in the field that has conspicuously influenced our criminal law. (...) When Jerome Hall's, General Principles of Criminal Law (1947) appeared, it represented the first significant effort to articulate the principles of criminal law since Bishop's era. Hall's work may, in fact, represent the most important treatise on criminal law produced by American legal scholarship." --Fred Cohen, Journal of Legal Education 16 (1963-64) 260.

A clear, critical analysis of proof of causation in the law of tort in England, France and Germany.

Chapter 8. Remedies, Part 1: As If It Had Never Happened -- Chapter 9. Remedies, Part 2: Before a Court -- Chapter 10. Conclusion: Horizontal and Vertical -- Index

Strict liability and the common law -- Strict liability and particular torts in legal history -- Rylands v Fletcher in the United Kingdom -- Comparative approach to Rylands v Fletcher liability -- Summary of the theoretical debate : strict liability and fault-based liability -- Critical reflections on the justifications for strict liability -- The tort of nuisance and fault -- Strict liability in the law of defamation -- Trespass and fault.