The Pervasive Role of Uncertainty in Tort Law: Rights and Remedies
Robert L. Rabin
Stanford Law School
October 18, 2010
DePaul Law Review, Forthcoming
Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 1695235
This Essay focuses on two strands, or themes, that seem to me central to understanding the place of uncertainty in the rich history of tort law: first, from a liability (or substantive doctrinal) perspective, the tension between rules and standards; and, second, from a remedial perspective, the claims for “make whole” versus categorical damages.
From a liability perspective, I begin by examining accident law from a historical vantage point, emphasizing the rules-dominant character of the system in earlier times. I then explore the heyday of standards, beginning in the mid-1960s, which is followed by what I regard as a period of equipoise extending to the present day.
From a damages perspective, I contrast some of the judicial and scholarly efforts to promote categorical initiatives with the strong adherence to a “make-whole” approach to compensation in the courts. To conclude this perspective, I provide an afterword on punitive damages.
A brief summary suggests that both ethical and pragmatic concerns illuminate why the tension between liability rules and standards, as well as between make-whole and categorical approaches to damages, resists full resolution.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 30
Keywords: Tort lawAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 21, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.750 seconds