Robert Stevens
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199211609
- eISBN:
- 9780191705946
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199211609.003.0013
- Subject:
- Law, Law of Obligations
In order to understand and justify the law of torts it is necessary to understand its place on the map of private law. The law of torts is not a free-standing subject. Torts belong in the same ...
More
In order to understand and justify the law of torts it is necessary to understand its place on the map of private law. The law of torts is not a free-standing subject. Torts belong in the same sequence as breach of contract and equitable wrongs. Torts is a catch all category of ‘other wrongs’. The law of torts has no free-standing existence independent of the primary rights, such as property rights, upon which it depends. Within the law of torts the picture is one of chaos. Torts are classified according to context (e.g., occupiers, products), degree of fault (e.g., negligence) and right infringed (e.g., defamation). The economic torts have no inherent unity. No subject can be understood in the way presented in the standard texts. Classification according to primary right is to be preferred, and the so-called ‘tort of negligence’ should be abandoned.Less
In order to understand and justify the law of torts it is necessary to understand its place on the map of private law. The law of torts is not a free-standing subject. Torts belong in the same sequence as breach of contract and equitable wrongs. Torts is a catch all category of ‘other wrongs’. The law of torts has no free-standing existence independent of the primary rights, such as property rights, upon which it depends. Within the law of torts the picture is one of chaos. Torts are classified according to context (e.g., occupiers, products), degree of fault (e.g., negligence) and right infringed (e.g., defamation). The economic torts have no inherent unity. No subject can be understood in the way presented in the standard texts. Classification according to primary right is to be preferred, and the so-called ‘tort of negligence’ should be abandoned.
