The Negligence Dualism

112 Pages Posted: 4 Feb 2009

See all articles by Mark F. Grady

Mark F. Grady

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

Date Written: January 2009


When Oliver Wendell Holmes synthesized the writs of trespass and trespass on the case, he left out of his gloss of modern accident law an extremely important part, namely, the strict liability that everyone faces for routine errors, such as failing to check one's blind spot before changing lanes.

One proof of how poorly the language of negligence fits the strict liability that actually exists for routine "compliance errors" is the debate among legal historians about whether the modern tort rule governing accidents is less strict than the classical English rule. As I develop in the article, the modern accident rule is, in reality, strikingly similar to the ancient accident rule. Holmes's neglect of the strict liability component of the modern negligence rule has hindered our understanding of both it and the classical accident rule.

When we see clearly what the strict-liability component of the modern negligence rule is, it opens a new window on negligence theory.

Keywords: negligence theory, intentional torts, negligence rule, strict liability

JEL Classification: K13

Suggested Citation

Grady, Mark F., The Negligence Dualism (January 2009). UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 09-02, Available at SSRN:

Mark F. Grady (Contact Author)

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )

385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
310-206-1856 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics