Footnotes (98)



Victim Fault and Victim Strict Responsibility in Anglo-American Tort Law

Kenneth W. Simons

University of California, Irvine School of Law; Boston University - School of Law

November 21, 2012

Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper, No. 13-1

Anglo-American tort doctrine pays considerable attention to the conduct of the victim as well as the conduct of the injurer. A symmetrical standard of care for victims and injurers is also common: just as injurers are liable for failure to use reasonable care, victims frequently have their compensation reduced insofar as they, too, failed to use reasonable care. The advent of comparative fault, replacing the all-or-nothing rule of contributory negligence, has made the symmetrical approach seem inexorable and unremarkable.

But symmetry is usually the wrong perspective for the legal system to take towards victim and injurer conduct. That perspective also misdescribes legal doctrine. Courts often depart from symmetry, even in comparative fault jurisdictions. Thus, courts recognize several categorical doctrines that permit full recovery without regard to the possible fault of the victim (e.g., where the defendant’s duty is to protect the victim from his own vulnerability or incapacity, or where the defendant is engaged to provide medical care or other services to the victim necessitated by the victim’s own prior fault). Courts also recognize categorical doctrines that automatically preclude any recovery despite the supposed presumptive status of comparative fault (e.g., the illegality doctrine, the mitigation of damages doctrine, and the defense of voluntary assumption of risk).

Moreover, even when victim conduct is compared to injurer conduct, the way in which victim conduct is relevant to tort liability is frequently qualitatively different than the way in which injurer conduct is relevant. Often, when we characterize a victim as being “at fault,” we do not mean that the victim should have acted differently, but only that he should be strictly responsible for his choice or action (e.g. because he justifiably forfeited his right to full damages). Indeed, sometimes, even though a victim has a moral or legal right not to take a precaution, it is appropriate to deny him full damages for the harm that the precaution would have averted.

To be sure, symmetry is sometimes appropriate, especially when the actor’s unreasonable conduct creates substantial risks both to others and to himself. But in many other cases, symmetry is much less defensible, at least if one endorses a nonconsequentialist rather than utilitarian account of tort law. The law could do more to address the unjustifiable use of symmetrical criteria — e.g., the fact-finder could be instructed, or the judge could be advised, to treat risk to others as a more serious type of fault than risk to self.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 32

Keywords: private law, tort law, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, comparative fault

JEL Classification: K13

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: January 21, 2013 ; Last revised: February 15, 2013

Suggested Citation

Simons, Kenneth W., Victim Fault and Victim Strict Responsibility in Anglo-American Tort Law (November 21, 2012). Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper, No. 13-1. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2199069 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2199069

Contact Information

Kenneth W. Simons (Contact Author)
University of California, Irvine School of Law ( email )
401 E. Peltason Dr.
Room 3800H
Irvine, CA 92697-1000
United States
Boston University - School of Law
765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 819
Downloads: 137
Download Rank: 167,577
Footnotes:  98