| Contents |
|
vii | |
| Acknowledgements |
|
xv | |
|
|
|
xvii | |
|
|
|
xxvii | |
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
What Makes a Good Theory? |
|
|
3 | (6) |
|
|
|
|
2 Trespass: Tort and the Vindication of Rights |
|
|
9 | (36) |
|
|
|
9 | (3) |
|
Debate 1 Justifying Strict Liability and Actionability Per Se |
|
|
12 | (7) |
|
Strict Liability and Defences |
|
|
12 | (5) |
|
Actionability Per Se and Vindication |
|
|
17 | (2) |
|
Debate 2 Remedies and Vindication of Rights |
|
|
19 | (12) |
|
|
|
22 | (2) |
|
|
|
24 | (3) |
|
Vindication by Declaration? |
|
|
27 | (3) |
|
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
Debate 3 Trespass and `Constitutional Rights' |
|
|
31 | (5) |
|
Debate 4 `Informed Medical Consent' - Which Tort? |
|
|
36 | (3) |
|
Conclusion: Negligence and Trespass Distinguished |
|
|
39 | (6) |
|
|
|
|
3 Negligence: Introduction |
|
|
45 | (8) |
|
|
|
45 | (2) |
|
Tort as an Instrument of Social Policy |
|
|
47 | (2) |
|
The Structure of Negligence |
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
Negligence: Further Issues |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
Omissions and Public Authority Liability |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
Assumption of Responsibility |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
4 Causation and Corrective Justice |
|
|
53 | (42) |
|
Debate 1 Causation and Compensation |
|
|
54 | (12) |
|
Accident Compensation Schemes |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
Compensation and Tort Doctrine |
|
|
55 | (2) |
|
Fairchild Enclave: `Single Causal Agent' |
|
|
57 | (3) |
|
Fairchild Enclave: `Scientific Uncertainty' |
|
|
60 | (2) |
|
Fairchild Enclave: A Special Rule for Mesothelioma? |
|
|
62 | (4) |
|
Debate 2 Causation and Deterrence |
|
|
66 | (11) |
|
Punishment and Justice: Tort and Crime |
|
|
66 | (3) |
|
Deterrence, Economic Analysis and Causation |
|
|
69 | (3) |
|
Causation, the Burden of Proof and the `Empty Duty' Argument |
|
|
72 | (3) |
|
Exceptional Cases? Fairchild and Chester |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
Debate 3 Questioning Corrective Justice - Moral and Doctrinal Critique |
|
|
77 | (18) |
|
`Two Hunters' (or `the Indeterminate Defendant') |
|
|
77 | (5) |
|
The `Matching' Problem: Sindell v Abbot Laboratories |
|
|
82 | (2) |
|
Aggregation and Corrective Justice |
|
|
84 | (4) |
|
Moral Critique of Corrective Justice |
|
|
88 | (4) |
|
|
|
92 | (3) |
|
5 Concepts of Causation: But-For and Remoteness |
|
|
95 | (38) |
|
Introduction: Causation, Proof, `Damage' and Consequential Loss |
|
|
95 | (5) |
|
Debate 1 The But-For Test |
|
|
100 | (13) |
|
The Problem of Multiple Causes: But-For `Disapplied' |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
Multiple Sufficient Factors: Each Causal? |
|
|
103 | (4) |
|
The No Better Off Principle |
|
|
107 | (2) |
|
Does It Make Any Difference? |
|
|
109 | (3) |
|
Conclusion: `Involvement' or `Necessity'? |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
Debate 2 Remoteness, Causation and `Common Sense' |
|
|
113 | (20) |
|
`Foreseeable Kind of Harm' |
|
|
115 | (5) |
|
|
|
120 | (3) |
|
Coincidences: Chester v Afshar |
|
|
123 | (3) |
|
`The Scope of Duty' Limitation |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
Conclusion: `Common Sense Causation' and the Scope of Responsibility |
|
|
127 | (6) |
|
6 What Is the Function of the Duty of Care? |
|
|
133 | (20) |
|
Debate It Is the Duty of Care an Essential Component of the Tort of Negligence? |
|
|
135 | (4) |
|
Foreseeability: The Unity of Duty, Breach and Damage? |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
The Triviality of Foreseeability? |
|
|
140 | (2) |
|
The Redundancy of Foreseeability? |
|
|
142 | (3) |
|
Debate 2 Does the Duty of Care Serve a Useful Function? |
|
|
145 | (8) |
|
Duty of Care: Then and Now |
|
|
146 | (2) |
|
Abolishing the Duty of Care? |
|
|
148 | (3) |
|
|
|
151 | (2) |
|
7 Defining the Duty of Care |
|
|
153 | (38) |
|
Debate 1 The Caparo `Test' - Decline and Fall? |
|
|
154 | (6) |
|
A Defence of the Three-Stage Test |
|
|
157 | (2) |
|
Duty: Division between Justice and the Public Interest? |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
Debate 2 Policy and the Duty of Care |
|
|
160 | (17) |
|
Common Law Rights, Public Interest Legislation? |
|
|
164 | (2) |
|
Policy and Legal Certainty |
|
|
166 | (3) |
|
Policy, Evidence and Judicial Capacity |
|
|
169 | (4) |
|
The Politics of Corrective Justice |
|
|
173 | (2) |
|
|
|
175 | (2) |
|
|
|
177 | (14) |
|
Fashion and Incrementalism |
|
|
177 | (5) |
|
|
|
182 | (5) |
|
Incrementalism: Conclusions |
|
|
187 | (4) |
|
8 `Physical Injury' in Negligence |
|
|
191 | (28) |
|
Personal Injury: So Obvious That It Goes Without Saying? |
|
|
191 | (4) |
|
Clarification: `Gist Damage' and `Consequential Loss' |
|
|
195 | (1) |
|
Debate 1 What is `Personal Injury'? The Boundaries of `Bodily Harm' |
|
|
196 | (6) |
|
Minor Injuries: A `Hook'for Consequential Loss? |
|
|
197 | (2) |
|
`Actionable Damage' and Limitation Periods |
|
|
199 | (1) |
|
The Outer Limits of `Personal Injury'? |
|
|
200 | (2) |
|
Debate 2 `Preventive' Damages |
|
|
202 | (5) |
|
Caught in the Crossfire: Preventive Damages and Anns |
|
|
206 | (1) |
|
Debate 3 `Wrongful Birth' and Physical Injury |
|
|
207 | (12) |
|
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
`Wrongful Birth' and the Sanctity of Life |
|
|
209 | (2) |
|
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
Categorisation: Duty and Damage |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
Gendered Reasoning About `Actionable Damage'? |
|
|
213 | (3) |
|
`Loss of Autonomy' as Actionable Damage? |
|
|
216 | (2) |
|
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
9 Psychiatric Illness, Emotional Harm and `Shock' |
|
|
219 | (44) |
|
Debate 1 Physical Injuries, Shock, Distress and `Recognisable Psychiatric Illness' - What Interest Should Tort Law Protect? |
|
|
219 | (9) |
|
A Preference for the Physical? |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
`Psychiatric Illness' or `Nervous Shock'? |
|
|
220 | (3) |
|
`Recognisable Psychiatric Illness' |
|
|
223 | (2) |
|
|
|
225 | (3) |
|
Debate 2 Justifying the Restrictive Rules on Psychiatric Illness |
|
|
228 | (16) |
|
The Alcock Rules on `Secondary Victims' |
|
|
228 | (3) |
|
Alcock Rules: Rights-Based Critique |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
Alcock Rules: Policy Critique |
|
|
232 | (3) |
|
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
`Primary Victims': Zone of Danger or `Involvement'? |
|
|
236 | (4) |
|
|
|
240 | (4) |
|
Debate 3 How Should the Law on Psychiatric Illness be Reformed? |
|
|
244 | (19) |
|
A Foreseeability-Based Approach? |
|
|
245 | (4) |
|
|
|
249 | (2) |
|
The Law Commission and `Muddling Through'? |
|
|
251 | (1) |
|
Retention: `Recognisable Psychiatric Illness' |
|
|
251 | (1) |
|
Abolition: `Sudden Shocking Event' |
|
|
252 | (3) |
|
Abolition: Proximity in Time and Space; Own Unaided Senses ISA |
|
|
|
Reform: Ties of Love and Affection |
|
|
255 | (1) |
|
Another Compromise: Quid Pro Quo? |
|
|
256 | (1) |
|
|
|
257 | (6) |
|
|
|
|
10 Private Nuisance and Property Rights |
|
|
263 | (40) |
|
Debate Is Is Nuisance a Tort for Protecting Property Rights? |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
Property Rights: Standing to Bring a Claim |
|
|
264 | (2) |
|
Property Rights: Compensation |
|
|
266 | (2) |
|
Nuisance and Human Rights |
|
|
268 | (3) |
|
The Boundaries of Nuisance: The Absence of Rights |
|
|
271 | (5) |
|
Debate 2 Justifying the Rights-Based Approach |
|
|
276 | (13) |
|
Protecting the `More Fundamental' Use of Land: Beever's Theory of Nuisance |
|
|
278 | (2) |
|
Beever's Theory: Appraisal and Criticism |
|
|
280 | (4) |
|
Defining Property Rights: The Role of the Public Interest |
|
|
284 | (4) |
|
|
|
288 | (1) |
|
Debate 3 Balancing or Strict Liability? Property Damage, Nuisance and Trespass |
|
|
289 | (14) |
|
Strict Liability for Property Damage and Trespass |
|
|
290 | (3) |
|
Balancing Rights: `Live and Let Live' |
|
|
293 | (2) |
|
Balancing Rights: Locality and `Ordinary Human Existence' |
|
|
295 | (5) |
|
|
|
300 | (3) |
|
11 Economic Analysis of Nuisance |
|
|
303 | (18) |
|
|
|
303 | (5) |
|
Critique of Coase: Misdescription of Nuisance Doctrine |
|
|
308 | (2) |
|
Critique of Coase: Judicial Capacity to Identify `Highest Value Use of Land' |
|
|
310 | (3) |
|
Information Theory in Nuisance and Trespass: Clear Rules and `Coasian Bargaining' |
|
|
313 | (8) |
|
12 Nuisance and the Environment: Tort, Regulation and Pollution |
|
|
321 | (34) |
|
Debate 1 Nuisance and Environmental Protection - Potential and Limits |
|
|
322 | (6) |
|
Private Property and the Environment |
|
|
322 | (3) |
|
|
|
325 | (3) |
|
Debate 2 The Interaction of Tort and Regulation - Nuisance and Planning Permission |
|
|
327 | |
|
The Defence of Statutory Authority |
|
|
328 | (1) |
|
Planning Permission: No Defence |
|
|
329 | (4) |
|
Regulation and the Scope of Nuisance |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
Remedies and Planning Permission |
|
|
334 | (4) |
|
Tort and Regulation: Analysis |
|
|
338 | (5) |
|
|
|
343 | (1) |
|
Debate 3 Pollution and the Industrial Revolution - Nuisance in the Nineteenth (and the Twenty-First) Century |
|
|
344 | (11) |
|
The Received Historical Account |
|
|
345 | (3) |
|
Nuisance and Pollution Control: Underrated? |
|
|
348 | (2) |
|
Conclusion: Climate Change and Nuisance in the Twenty-First Century |
|
|
350 | (5) |
| Index |
|
355 | |
Lisainfo e-raamatute kohta