Interpreting Tort Law

23 Pages Posted: 24 Jul 2012

Date Written: July 23, 2012

Abstract

This article is a comment on Goldberg and Zipursky’s civil recourse theory of tort law. Goldberg and Zipursky’s theory is a masterful project, the best of its kind. Nevertheles, I offer two criticisms. The first is that, ultimately, civil recourse reflects the need for a peaceful alternative to private revenge - a feature of social life that may be inevitable but is not particularly laudable. The second point expresses my own skepticism about interpretation of fields of law. Doctrinal categories such as Tort Law are accretions of common law and statutory rules, helpfully but artificially grouped together. I see no reason to expect such categories to embody overarching moral principles peculiar to the field. At best, theorists can adduce legal principles, which are neither legal rules nor moral principles but an odd sort of hybrid.

Keywords: Tort, Civil Recourse

Suggested Citation

Sherwin, Emily L., Interpreting Tort Law (July 23, 2012). Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2011, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-53, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2115579

Emily L. Sherwin (Contact Author)

Cornell University - Law School ( email )

Myron Taylor Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-4901
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
149
Abstract Views
1,183
Rank
354,722
PlumX Metrics