Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Negligence and Illegality [Kõva köide]

  • Formaat: Hardback, 272 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 238x162x22 mm, kaal: 540 g
  • Sari: Hart Studies in Private Law
  • Ilmumisaeg: 26-Jan-2017
  • Kirjastus: Hart Publishing
  • ISBN-10: 1509906665
  • ISBN-13: 9781509906666
Teised raamatud teemal:
  • Kõva köide
  • Hind: 98,44 €*
  • * hind on lõplik, st. muud allahindlused enam ei rakendu
  • Tavahind: 131,25 €
  • Säästad 25%
  • Raamatu kohalejõudmiseks kirjastusest kulub orienteeruvalt 3-4 nädalat
  • Kogus:
  • Lisa ostukorvi
  • Tasuta tarne
  • Tellimisaeg 2-4 nädalat
  • Lisa soovinimekirja
Negligence and IllegalitySuurem pilt
  • Formaat: Hardback, 272 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 238x162x22 mm, kaal: 540 g
  • Sari: Hart Studies in Private Law
  • Ilmumisaeg: 26-Jan-2017
  • Kirjastus: Hart Publishing
  • ISBN-10: 1509906665
  • ISBN-13: 9781509906666
Teised raamatud teemal:
Teised raamatud sellest sooduspakkumisest: Kevadine sooduspakkumine - kuni 31. maini üle miljoni raamatu kuni 25% soodsamalt
Püsilink: https://www.kriso.ee/db/9781509906666.html
Märksõnad:
This book examines claims in negligence arising from illegal conduct of the claimant. An array of public policy and other grounds have been advanced for resolving these claims, resulting in an area that is characterised by confusing and contradictory case law. The book analyses the various explanations put forward as the basis for illegality doctrine within a framework of corrective justice theory. Illegality law poses particular challenges for the corrective justice explanation of negligence law, as many illegality tests are based on public policy considerations external to the relationship of the parties. The book argues that the only circumstance where illegality doctrine should be applied to deny a claim is where this is necessary to preserve the coherence of the legal system. It develops the work of Ernest Weinribian corrective justice theorists to explain how the principle of legal coherence fits within the framework of corrective justice theory, and why legal coherence is the only valid conceptual basis for a doctrine of illegality. It also contains a detailed study on the scope of the coherence rationale and the principles that will determine its application.

Muu info

An important monograph on the illegality doctrine in the context of negligence claims.
Preface v
Table of Cases
xiii
Table of Legislation
xix
1 Introduction
1(16)
I The Disordered State of Illegality Doctrine
1(1)
II Taxonomy of Illegality Claims in Negligence Law
2(6)
A Categories of Claims Arising from an Illegality
2(2)
B Review of the Current Law
4(1)
i The Physical Injury Cases
4(3)
ii Sanction-shifting and Related Claims
7(1)
iii Illegal Profits and Earnings
7(1)
C Academic Commentary
8(1)
III Book Purpose
8(4)
IV Scope and Terminology
12(2)
V Structure
14(1)
VI Focus on the Common Law
15(2)
2 Theoretical Perspectives
17(15)
I Introduction
17(1)
II Debates about the Proper Basis of Tort Law
17(2)
III Main Features of Corrective Justice Theory
19(2)
IV Reasons for Adopting a Corrective Justice Framework
21(3)
V Key Implications of Adopting a Corrective Justice Framework
24(4)
VI Public Policy and Corrective Justice
28(3)
A Terminology
28(1)
B Extra-relational Public Policy
29(1)
C Relational `Policy' of Legal Coherence
30(1)
VII Conclusion
31(1)
3 The Tort-Crime Interface
32(11)
I Introduction
32(1)
II Consistency between Tort Law and Criminal Law an Important Value of the Legal System
33(3)
III An Award of Compensation is not `Profit'
36(3)
IV Illegality Doctrine Does Not Support the Criminal Law in a Conceptually Coherent or Rational Way
39(3)
V Conclusion
42(1)
4 Policy and Discretion
43(29)
I Overview
43(1)
II Defining Public Policy
44(1)
III Public Policy Out in the Open
45(3)
IV Lord Sumption's Stance Against Public Policy Reasoning
48(2)
V Evaluation of a Public Policy Approach
50(7)
A The Destabilising Effect of Public Policy Reasoning on the Law of Illegality
51(3)
B Incommensurability
54(3)
VI Public Policy in Negligence Claims
57(3)
VII Are These Objections to Public Policy Reasoning Overstated?
60(2)
VIII Concluding Remarks on Public Policy
62(1)
IX A Structured Discretion
62(8)
A A Judicially Structured Discretion
64(1)
i A Structured Discretion Introduces a Theoretical Incoherence into Negligence Law
65(1)
ii A Structured Discretion Will Make Decisions More Difficult and Unpredictable
66(2)
B A Statutorily Structured Discretion
68(2)
X Conclusion
70(2)
5 The Connection Tests
72(33)
I Overview
72(2)
II The Reliance Test
74(4)
III The Inextricable Link (Sufficient Connection) Test
78(6)
IV The Causation Test
84(17)
A Overview of the Causation Test
84(1)
B Development of the Causation Test in the United Kingdom
85(5)
C The Doctrinal Incoherence of a Causation Test
90(1)
i No Valid Test for Identifying the Claimant's Illegal Conduct as the Effective Cause of the Harm
90(3)
ii A Causation Test is Inconsistent with `Scope of Liability' Causation
93(5)
D The Conceptual Incoherence of the Causation Test
98(3)
V A Statutory Causation Test
101(3)
A Overview of the Statutory Defences
101(1)
B The Statutory Defences are Inconsistent with the Correlative Structure of Negligence Liability
102(2)
VI Conclusion
104(1)
6 Overview of the Coherence Rationale
105(18)
I Introduction
105(2)
II The Principle of Coherence is not Dependent on Corrective Justice for its Validity
107(1)
III Concerns about Legal Coherence are Relational Concerns
108(2)
IV Categories of Claims Where a Legal Incoherence Might Arise
110(5)
A Allowing Recovery would Enable the Claimant to Escape the Effects of the Law Proscribing the Conduct
111(1)
B Allowing Recovery would Enable the Claimant to Profit from Wrongdoing
111(1)
i Exemplary Damages
112(2)
ii Illegal Profits and Earnings
114(1)
V The Limited Application of the Coherence Rationale to Personal Injury Claims
115(2)
VI Other Misappropriations of the Coherence Rationale
117(2)
VII Does an Exclusive Focus on Legal Coherence Result in an Unjustifiably Narrow Doctrine of Illegality?
119(2)
VIII Conclusion
121(2)
7 Statutory Purpose
123(21)
I Introduction
123(2)
II Brief Overview of Miller v Miller
125(2)
III Implications of the Statutory Purpose Explanation
127(1)
IV Evaluation of the Statutory Purpose Explanation: Claims for Harm Sustained in the Course of Committing an Illegal Act
128(10)
A Discerning Statutory Purpose can be a Highly Speculative Exercise
128(6)
B Appeals to Statutory Purpose can Involve Unarticulated Value and Policy Judgements
134(3)
C Focus on Statutory Purpose Distracts the Court from a Relational Analysis of Duty of Care
137(1)
V Evaluation of the Statutory Purpose Explanation: Sanction-shifting Claims and Claims for Illegal Profits and Earnings
138(2)
VI Statutory Purpose Explanation Is Arguably Better Adapted to Other Areas of Private Law Illegality
140(2)
VII Conclusion
142(2)
8 No Loss or Damage: Sanction-shifting and Related Claims
144(37)
I Introduction
144(1)
II Background
145(1)
III The Consistency Rule
146(6)
A Overview of the Consistency Rule
146(3)
B Is there a Convincing Rationale for a Consistency Rule Tied to the Claimant's Culpability?
149(3)
IV A Corrective Justice Perspective
152(8)
A Introduction
152(1)
B Overview of the No Loss or Damage Explanation
153(1)
i Proposition One: No Violation of a Right (No Damage)
153(2)
ii Proposition Two: No Legal Value (No Loss)
155(2)
C The No Loss or Damage Explanation is Compatible with a Loss-based Model of Negligence Law
157(3)
V Loss or Damage that is Irrecoverable
160(5)
A Pecuniary Penalties
160(2)
B Non-pecuniary Losses Resulting from Detention
162(3)
VI Loss or Damage that is Recoverable
165(8)
A Loss of Earning Capacity
166(3)
B Other Non-pecuniary Damages
169(1)
C Claims to be Indemnified for a Third Party Civil Liability
170(3)
VII Culpability of the Claimant is Irrelevant
173(3)
VIII Corporate Responsibility
176(4)
IX Conclusion
180(1)
9 No Loss or Damage: Illegal Profits and Earnings
181(13)
I Introduction
181(1)
II The No Legal Value Proposition
182(2)
III Relevance of the Proceeds of Crime Legislation
184(1)
IV Statement of the No Legal Value Proposition
185(1)
V Application of the No Legal Value Proposition to the Case Law
186(5)
A Illegal Earnings
186(2)
B Illegal Profits
188(3)
VI Application of the Statutory Purpose Explanation
191(1)
VII Onus of Proof
192(1)
VIII Conclusion
193(1)
10 A Relational Explanation: Joint Illegal Enterprise Cases
194(33)
I Introduction
194(2)
II The Illegal Relationship Between the Parties will not of Itself Negate Duty of Care
196(1)
III Background: The Standard of Care Approach
197(4)
A Development of the Standard of Care Approach
197(2)
B The Standard of Care Approach is not an Appropriate Explanation of the Joint Illegality Cases
199(2)
IV The Relationship Between the Parties Is such that the Claimant Cannot Expect the Defendant to Act Carefully (the Joyce Principle)
201(3)
V Support for the Joyce Principle in the United Kingdom
204(1)
VI The Joyce Principle should be Adopted as the Basis for Resolving Joint Illegality Cases
205(2)
VII Is an `All or Nothing' Approach Ever Appropriate?
207(1)
VIII Corrective Justice Requires an Examination into the Standard of Care that could Reasonably be Expected
208(4)
IX The Requirements for the Establishment of the Joyce Principle
212(1)
X Application of the Joyce Principle to Joint Illegal Enterprise Cases
213(3)
A Nature, Purpose and Scope of the Joint Enterprise
213(2)
B Time at Which the Claimant's Knowledge of the Risks Is to be Assessed
215(1)
XI Joint Illegal Relations that Displace the Normal Standard of Care
216(7)
A The Joyriding Cases
216(4)
B Illegal Road-racing
220(1)
C Fleeing the Scene of a Crime
221(2)
XII Does the Joyce Principle Give an Unjustified Advantage to a Criminal Accomplice?
223(1)
XIII Interaction with Defences
224(2)
XIV Conclusion
226(1)
11 Conclusion
227(6)
Index 233
Sharon Erbacher is a Senior Lecturer at the Law School at Deakin University, Australia.