IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxjlsj/v41y2021i1p192-218..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Moral Necessity of Tort Law: The Fairness Argument

Author

Listed:
  • Sandy Steel

Abstract

Various theorists have claimed that by prohibiting certain responses to violations of rights by legal subjects, the legal system owes legal subjects something in return, and that something should take the form of tort law. My overall claim is that the best version of this ‘fairness argument’ for a duty to provide tort law is of limited success. The fairness argument, at best, shows that legal systems are under a pro tanto duty to provide only a highly limited form of tort law. The article first seeks to articulate the most powerful version of the fairness argument. It then argues, through consideration of four objections, that the argument justifies at best a pro tanto duty to provide a highly limited form of tort law, if it justifies a duty to provide tort law at all.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandy Steel, 2021. "On the Moral Necessity of Tort Law: The Fairness Argument," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 192-218.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:192-218.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqaa045
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anatoliy Kostruba, 2023. "The current state of tort law in Ukraine and its development in the context of European integration," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 47-63.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:192-218.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ojls .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.