Backwards and Forwards with Tort Law

LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, J. Keim-Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier, eds., MIT Press, 2005

34 Pages Posted: 30 Apr 2009  

John Gardner

University of Oxford - Faculty of Law

Date Written: January 1, 2005

Abstract

Here I am concerned with Jules Coleman's challenge, in his book The Practice of Principle, to the attempts of some economists of law to defend, in economic terms, certain core doctrines of the law of torts. The core doctrines in question are (a) that a tort is a wrong and (b) that the remedial duties of tort law (especially to pay damages) are duties to repair the wrong (or the damage that forms part of it). Although I share the view that economists of law typically work with a bad theory of value, I doubt Coleman's contention that their bad theory of value disables them from defending these doctrines in terms of it. Along the way I doubt the contrasts that are sometimes drawn between 'justificatory' and 'explanatory' theories of tort, and between 'normative' and 'positive' economics.

Keywords: jurisprudence, tort law

Suggested Citation

Gardner, John, Backwards and Forwards with Tort Law (January 1, 2005). LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, J. Keim-Campbell, M. O'Rourke & D. Shier, eds., MIT Press, 2005. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1397107

John Gardner (Contact Author)

University of Oxford - Faculty of Law ( email )

St. Cross Building
St. Cross Road
Oxford, OX1 3UJ
United Kingdom

Paper statistics

Downloads
420
Rank
54,916
Abstract Views
1,894