Negligence and Illegality available in Hardcover, Paperback, eBook
- ISBN-10:
- 1509906665
- ISBN-13:
- 9781509906666
- Pub. Date:
- 01/26/2017
- Publisher:
- Bloomsbury Academic
- ISBN-10:
- 1509906665
- ISBN-13:
- 9781509906666
- Pub. Date:
- 01/26/2017
- Publisher:
- Bloomsbury Academic
Buy New
$120.00-
PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Overview
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.
Product Details
ISBN-13: | 9781509906666 |
---|---|
Publisher: | Bloomsbury Academic |
Publication date: | 01/26/2017 |
Series: | Hart Studies in Private Law , #20 |
Pages: | 272 |
Product dimensions: | 6.14(w) x 9.21(h) x 0.62(d) |
About the Author
Table of Contents
Preface v
Table of Cases xiii
Table of Legislation xix
1 Introduction 1
I The Disordered State of Illegality Doctrine 1
II Taxonomy of Illegality Claims in Negligence Law 2
A Categories of Claims Arising from an Illegality 2
B Review of the Current Law 4
i The Physical Injury Cases 4
ii Sanction-shifting and Related Claims 7
iii Illegal Profits and Earnings 7
C Academic Commentary 8
III Book Purpose 8
IV Scope and Terminology 12
V Structure 14
VI Focus on the Common Law 15
2 Theoretical Perspectives 17
I Introduction 17
II Debates about the Proper Basis of Tort Law 17
III Main Features of Corrective Justice Theory 19
IV Reasons for Adopting a Corrective Justice Framework 21
V Key Implications of Adopting a Corrective Justice Framework 24
VI Public Policy and Corrective Justice 28
A Terminology 28
B Extra-relational Public Policy 29
C Relational 'Policy' of Legal Coherence 30
VII Conclusion 31
3 The Tort-Crime Interface 32
I Introduction 32
II Consistency between Tort Law and Criminal Law an Important Value of the Legal System 33
III An Award of Compensation is not 'Profit' 36
IV Illegality Doctrine Does Not Support the Criminal Law in a Conceptually Coherent or Rational Way 39
V Conclusion 42
4 Policy and Discretion 43
I Overview 43
II Denning Public Policy 44
III Public Policy Out in the Open 45
IV Lord Sumption's Stance Against Public Policy Reasoning 48
V Evaluation of a Public Policy Approach 50
A The Destabilising Effect of Public Policy Reasoning on the Law of Illegality 51
B Incommensurability 54
VI Public Policy in Negligence Claims 57
VII Are These Objections to Public Policy Reasoning Overstated? 60
VIII Concluding Remarks on Public Policy 62
IX A Structured Discretion 62
A A Judicially Structured Discretion 64
i A Structured Discretion Introduces a Theoretical Incoherence into Negligence Law 65
ii A Structured Discretion Will Make Decisions More Difficult and Unpredictable 66
B A Statutorily Structured Discretion 68
X Conclusion 70
5 The Connection Tests 72
I Overview 72
II The Reliance Test 74
III The Inextricable Link (Sufficient Connection) Test 78
IV The Causation Test 84
A Overview of the Causation Test 84
B Development of the Causation Test in the United Kingdom 85
C The Doctrinal Incoherence of a Causation Test 90
i No Valid Test for Identifying the Claimant's Illegal Conduct as the Effective Cause of the Harm 90
ii A Causation Test is Inconsistent with 'Scope of Liability' Causation 93
D The Conceptual Incoherence of the Causation Test 98
V A Statutory Causation Test 101
A Overview of the Statutory Defences 101
B The Statutory Defences are Inconsistent with the Correlative Structure of Negligence Liability 102
VI Conclusion 104
6 Overview of the Coherence Rationale 105
I Introduction 105
II The Principle of Coherence is not Dependent on Corrective Justice for its Validity 107
III Concerns about Legal Coherence are Relational Concerns 108
IV Categories of Claims Where a Legal Incoherence Might Arise 110
A Allowing Recovery would Enable the Claimant to Escape the Effects of the Law Proscribing the Conduct 111
B Allowing Recovery would Enable the Claimant to Profit from Wrongdoing 111
i Exemplary Damages 112
ii Illegal Profits and Earnings 114
V The Limited Application of the Coherence Rationale to Personal Injury Claims 115
VI Other Misappropriations of the Coherence Rationale 117
VII Does an Exclusive Focus on Legal Coherence Result in an Unjustifiably Narrow Doctrine of Illegality? 119
VIII Conclusion 121
7 Statutory Purpose 123
I Introduction 123
II Brief Overview of Miller v Miller 125
III Implications of the Statutory Purpose Explanation 127
IV Evaluation of the Statutory Purpose Explanation: Claims for Harm Sustained in the Course of Committing an Illegal Act 128
A Discerning Statutory Purpose can be a Highly Speculative Exercise 128
B Appeals to Statutory Purpose can Involve Unarticulated Value and Policy Judgements 134
C Focus on Statutory Purpose Distracts the Court from a Relational Analysis of Duty of Care 137
V Evaluation of the Statutory Purpose Explanation: Sanction-shifting Claims and Claims for Illegal Profits and Earnings 138
VI Statutory Purpose Explanation Is Arguably Better Adapted to Other Areas of Private Law Illegality 140
VII Conclusion i42
8 No Loss or Damage: Sanction-shifting and Related Claims 144
I Introduction 144
II Background 145
III The Consistency Rule 146
A Overview of the Consistency Rule 146
B Is there a Convincing Rationale for a Consistency Rule Tied to the Claimant's Culpability? 149
IV A Corrective Justice Perspective 152
A Introduction 152
B Overview of the No Loss or Damage Explanation 153
i Proposition One: No Violation of a Right (No Damage) 153
ii Proposition Two: No Legal Value (No Loss) 155
C The No Loss or Damage Explanation is Compatible with a Loss-based Model of Negligence Law 157
V Loss or Damage that is Irrecoverable 160
A Pecuniary Penalties 160
B Non-pecuniary Losses Resulting from Detention 162
VI Loss or Damage that is Recoverable 165
A Loss of Earning Capacity 166
B Other Non-pecuniary Damages 169
C Claims to be Indemnified for a Third Party Civil Liability 170
VII Culpability of the Claimant is Irrelevant 173
VIII Corporate Responsibility 176
IX Conclusion 180
9 No Loss or Damage: Illegal Profits and Earnings 181
I Introduction 181
II The No Legal Value Proposition 182
III Relevance of the Proceeds of Crime Legislation 184
IV Statement of the No Legal Value Proposition 185
V Application of the No Legal Value Proposition to the Case Law 186
A Illegal Earnings 186
B Illegal Profits 188
VI Application of the Statutory Purpose Explanation 191
VII Onus of Proof 192
VIII Conclusion 193
10 A Relational Explanation: Joint Illegal Enterprise Cases 194
I Introduction 194
II The Illegal Relationship Between the Parties will not of Itself Negate Duty of Care 196
III Background: The Standard of Care Approach 197
A Development of the Standard of Care Approach 197
B The Standard of Care Approach is not an Appropriate Explanation of the Joint Illegality Cases 199
IV The Relationship Between the Parties Is such that the Claimant Cannot Expect the Defendant to Act Carefully (the Joyce Principle) 201
V Support for the Joyce Principle in the United Kingdom 204
VI The Joyce Principle should be Adopted as the Basis for Resolving Joint Illegality Cases 205
VII Is an 'AH or Nothing' Approach Ever Appropriate? 207
VIII Corrective Justice Requires an Examination into the Standard of Care that could Reasonably be Expected 208
IX The Requirements for the Establishment of the Joyce Principle 212
X Application of the Joyce Principle to Joint Illegal Enterprise Cases 213
A Nature, Purpose and Scope of the Joint Enterprise 213
B Time at Which the Claimant's Knowledge of the Risks Is to be Assessed 215
XI Joint Illegal Relations that Displace the Normal Standard of Care 216
A The Joyriding Cases 216
B Illegal Road-racing 220
C Fleeing the Scene of a Crime 221
XII Does the Joyce Principle Give an Unjustified Advantage to a Criminal Accomplice? 223
XIII Interaction with Defences 224
XIV Conclusion 226
11 Conclusion 227
Index 233