The Great Illusion: Tort Law and Exposure to Danger of Physical Harm

27 Pages Posted: 21 Oct 2009

See all articles by Emmanuel Voyiakis

Emmanuel Voyiakis

Brunel University - School of Social Sciences and Law

Abstract

In the aftermath of Gregg v Scott and Johnston v NEI, it is commonly thought that claims for exposure to danger of physical harm are not independently compensatable in English law. I argue that this assumption is doubly mistaken. On the one hand, claimants exposed to danger of physical harm have a compelling argument of principle for the recovery of any significant increase in the cost of their options for dealing with the carelessly heightened danger to their physical health. On the other hand, that argument of principle is not blocked by Gregg, or other cases in the line of precedent consolidated in that decision. Properly construed, the rejection of the plaintiff's claims in Gregg and Johnston is consistent with a right of recovery for significant costs following from careless exposure to danger of physical harm.

Suggested Citation

Voyiakis, Emmanuel, The Great Illusion: Tort Law and Exposure to Danger of Physical Harm. Modern Law Review, Vol. 72, Issue 6, pp. 909-935, November 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1491829 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00774.x

Emmanuel Voyiakis (Contact Author)

Brunel University - School of Social Sciences and Law ( email )

Kingston Lane
Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH
United Kingdom

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
3
Abstract Views
264
PlumX Metrics