Law in Contemporary Society

View   r10  >  r9  ...
RonMazorFirstPaper 10 - 25 Feb 2010 - Main.RonMazor
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 34 to 34
 It should not be a controversial proposition that the law should compensate a person who, through no fault of his own, is injured by the acts of another. It is a travesty that "reasonableness" and negligence subvert this fundamental standard.
Added:
>
>		What has changed between the Middle Ages and the present day is the monopoly of force and the centralized power of law. In the past, if a court failed to do justice, people had private means to rectify the problem. In modern civilization, the people no longer retain that power. They have entrusted the force of society to the courts, and they hope that the courts will use that power well. As a flawed and human system, the court often does not use its power well. Basing compensation for damage on the "unreproachable" conduct of the damager leaves the equally unreproachable damaged drifting in the wind.
 

Strict Liability Would Work in the Real World

If the U.S. ran on a strict liability system, life wouldn't change much. Baseball stadiums might have more enclosed roofs. Hockey games might be shielded by higher glass. Insurance would be a lot more extensive and widespread. But strict liability wouldn't be a paradigm shift. Free enterprise would continue to exist. It'd just be safer at the margins.


Revision 10r10 - 25 Feb 2010 - 19:33:01 - RonMazor
Revision 9r9 - 21 Feb 2010 - 00:22:56 - RonMazor
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM