Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2014874
 


 



Maligned Misalignments


Michael D. Green


Wake Forest University - School of Law

Israel Gilead


Hebrew University of Jerusalem

February 27, 2012

Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 2014874

Abstract:     
This article responds to a fascinating and provocative article entitled “Misalignments in Tort Law,” authored by Ariel Porat and published at 121 Yale L.J. 82 (2011). Porat argues that the rule embodied in Section 29 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm creates a doctrinal misalignment that should be removed. This "scope of liability" provision, which Porat names "the wrongful risks limitation," provides that "[a]n actor‘s liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor‘s conduct tortious" (wrongful risks). Porat argues that as "all foreseeable risks created by the injurer should be and are considered by courts when they set the standard of care," liability should not be limited to wrongful risks, as required by Section 29, but rather extend to all harms materializing from foreseeable risks. Limiting liability to wrongful risks, Porat argues, is a misalignment which should be removed because it is unjustified in terms of efficiency and cannot be convincingly justified in terms of corrective justice.

This article argues that Porat's analysis and criticism of the "scope of liability" rule in Section 29 is flawed. While courts should take all foreseeable risks into account when deciding whether a conduct was negligent (namely, when determining whether the standard of care was breached), they should nevertheless for scope of liability purposes distinguish between unreasonable risks on the one other hand and reasonable risks on the other. When an actor is found negligent, liability should be limited to harms materializing from the unreasonable risks and exclude harms materializing from reasonable risks. The article seeks to demonstrate that such a limitation on liability, sanctioned by Section 29, constitutes a rule, even if a misalignment, that, contrary to Porat, contributes to more appropriate incentives to avoid unreasonable conduct and produces fairer results.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 3, 2012 ; Last revised: March 22, 2012

Suggested Citation

Green, Michael D. and Gilead, Israel, Maligned Misalignments (February 27, 2012). Wake Forest Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 2014874. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2014874 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2014874

Contact Information

Michael D. Green (Contact Author)
Wake Forest University - School of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 7206
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
United States
Israel Gilead
Hebrew University of Jerusalem ( email )
Mount Scopus
Jerusalem, IL 91905
Israel
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 415
Downloads: 51
Download Rank: 229,144

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.344 seconds