Kenneth W. Simons

University of California, Irvine School of Law; Boston University - School of Law

Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 2, Summer 1999

This essay investigates moral and legal responsibility for negligence. Negligence has many meanings; the essay considers the creation of an unjustified and low probability risk of causing harm. The common-sense moral precept that one should not be negligent reflects neither a coldly calculating economic or utilitarian conception, nor an absolutist deontological conception that ignores all costs or disadvantages of taking precautions against risk. Rather, ordinary moral judgments, informed by plausible nonutilitarian and deontological moral principles, can make sense of the duty not to act negligently. And a pluralistic balancing approach can recognize the breadth of values expressed in these judgments and principles. In law, norms of negligence often express private moral norms, but they also have distinctive institutional features. In the realm of Anglo-American tort doctrine, principles of fault, rather than of corrective justice, offer the better interpretation and more convincing deontological justification.

JEL Classification: K13

Not Available For Download

Date posted: November 3, 1999  

Suggested Citation

Simons, Kenneth W., Negligence. Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 2, Summer 1999. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=173855

Contact Information

Kenneth W. Simons (Contact Author)
University of California, Irvine School of Law ( email )
401 E. Peltason Dr.
Room 3800H
Irvine, CA 92697-1000
United States
Boston University - School of Law
765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 797

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.250 seconds