國立虎尾科技大學 |

The Democratic Standard of Care in Tort Law.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Democratic Standard of Care in Tort Law./
作者:	Hall, Gregory Jay.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (254 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-11(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International78-11A(E).
標題:	Philosophy. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355039122

The Democratic Standard of Care in Tort Law.
Hall, Gregory Jay.

The Democratic Standard of Care in Tort Law. - 1 online resource (254 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-11(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)

Includes bibliographical references

Social life is inherently risky. Who should bear the costs of accidental harm? That issue has been traditionally addressed in tort legal doctrine under the concept of breach of the negligence standard of care. Trial courts provide juries with instructions that, put roughly, direct the jury to decide whether the defendant's conduct fell below what a reasonably prudent person would have done if in the defendant's circumstances. Without further judicial direction on that issue, the jury effectively has excessive discretion in rendering a verdict. Such discretion, opens the door for at least two kinds of potential injustice. Juries could treat like cases differently, and juries can easily ignore or fail to give due consideration to a society's diverse, irreconcilable, and competing conceptions of the good as to what constitutes reasonable prudence. To mitigate such, I have created "democratic standard theory." I claim that a theory based on the overarching moral and political commitments of the Kantian tradition can only specify what constitutes negligent breach if it incorporates, as facts, the actual values of the individuals subject to the risk at issue. Since individuals' comprehensive conceptions of the good conflict, majority rule, constrained by constitutional essentials, should determine what constitutes breach of the negligence standard of care. Thus, in each dispute over negligence in tort, democratic standard theory sets the stakes of negligent risk, especially the costs of accidental harm, in accordance with the values of as many as possible of the individuals locally affected by the particular kind of act at issue.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355039122Subjects--Topical Terms:

559771
Philosophy.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

The Democratic Standard of Care in Tort Law.
LDR:02932ntm a2200361Ki 4500 001 910895
005 20180517120323.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355039122
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10258093
035 $a (MiAaPQ)upenngdas:12596
035 $a AAI10258093
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
099 $a TUL $f hyy $c available through World Wide Web
100 1 $a Hall, Gregory Jay. $3 1182401
245 1 4 $a The Democratic Standard of Care in Tort Law.
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (254 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-11(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Stephen R. Perry.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.) $c University of Pennsylvania $d 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Social life is inherently risky. Who should bear the costs of accidental harm? That issue has been traditionally addressed in tort legal doctrine under the concept of breach of the negligence standard of care. Trial courts provide juries with instructions that, put roughly, direct the jury to decide whether the defendant's conduct fell below what a reasonably prudent person would have done if in the defendant's circumstances. Without further judicial direction on that issue, the jury effectively has excessive discretion in rendering a verdict. Such discretion, opens the door for at least two kinds of potential injustice. Juries could treat like cases differently, and juries can easily ignore or fail to give due consideration to a society's diverse, irreconcilable, and competing conceptions of the good as to what constitutes reasonable prudence. To mitigate such, I have created "democratic standard theory." I claim that a theory based on the overarching moral and political commitments of the Kantian tradition can only specify what constitutes negligent breach if it incorporates, as facts, the actual values of the individuals subject to the risk at issue. Since individuals' comprehensive conceptions of the good conflict, majority rule, constrained by constitutional essentials, should determine what constitutes breach of the negligence standard of care. Thus, in each dispute over negligence in tort, democratic standard theory sets the stakes of negligent risk, especially the costs of accidental harm, in accordance with the values of as many as possible of the individuals locally affected by the particular kind of act at issue.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 559771
650 4 $a Law. $3 671705
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0615
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a University of Pennsylvania. $b Philosophy. $3 1182402
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 78-11A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10258093 $z click for full text (PQDT)