Search

INTRODUCTION I. THE CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION OF REASONABLENESS A. Origins B. Subsequent Caselaw C. Secondary Resources II. EVOLUTION IN LIGHT OF THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE A. The Rationale 1. Corrective Justice 2. [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction I. The Legal Framework II. Justifications for Punitive Damages A. From Compensatory to Non-Compensatory Rationales B. Deterrence 1. Outline 2. Optimal Deterrence and Internalization of Harm [...]

The article addresses a flaw in the traditional definition of reasonableness in tort law, highlighting the exclusion of negative externalities of risk-reducing precautions from the analysis and advocating for their inclusion in assessing reasonableness.

Abstract: This Article uses the unprecedented disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as an opportunity to critically evaluate the law pertaining to civil liability for oil pollution before and after [...]

The article examines the question of who should be liable for the physical, economic and emotional losses incurred by direct and indirect victims of COVID-19. It shows the failure of existing legal frameworks to provide an appropriate solution for victims because of the ability of potential defendants to evade liability. A hybrid system is proposed, inspired by the international framework for the compensation of nuclear accident victims and by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

On September 25, 1976, the Israeli Road Accident Victims Compensation Act came into force. Prior to its enactment, road accident injuries were subject to the common law of torts, as codified in the Civil Wrongs Ordinance. The statutory reform was intended to achieve a social goal- namely, securing prompt and satisfactory compensation to all road accident victims, including many who would not have been entitled to compensation otherwise. To this end, the legislature abolished fault-both as a basis for and as a defense against liability-expanded mandatory insurance, and established the Road Accident Victims Compensation Fund as a residual compensation mechanism. Two secondary goals of this socially motivated reform were extensive loss-spreading and reduction in court congestion and administrative costs. This Article provides a critical evaluation of the common perception of this legislation. It challenges the Act's claims to fame, demonstrating that the changes it was intended to bring about did not occur, occurred to a much lesser extent than commonly believed, or could have occurred anyway. This casts doubts on the validity of the rhetoric surrounding the legislative project and provides valuable lessons for other jurisdictions considering similar reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]