Proportional Liability: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives
8 Angebote vergleichen

Lieferung aus: Schweiz, Sofort per Download lieferbar.
Courts have, traditionally, required the plaintiff to prove to the requisite standard of proof that causation exists. This monograph addresses what has, to date, been a modest reform toward permitting recovery based on a probability that causation exists, discounting the damages awarded by the probability of causation. The central purpose of our inquiry is to employ a comparative methodology to better understand how different legal systems, Courts have, traditionally, required the plaintiff to prove to the requisite standard of proof that causation exists. This monograph addresses what has, to date, been a modest reform toward permitting recovery based on a probability that causation exists, discounting the damages awarded by the probability of causation. The central purpose of our inquiry is to employ a comparative methodology to better understand how different legal systems respond to causal uncertainty and to examine why, how and in what situations rules of proportional liability can promote the goals of tort law. Israel Gilead, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; Michael D. Green, Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston-Salem, USA; Bernhard A. Koch, Innsbruck University, Austria. PDF, 14.10.2013.

Lieferung aus: Schweiz, Sofort per Download lieferbar.
Courts have, traditionally, required the plaintiff to prove to the requisite standard of proof that causation exists. This monograph addresses what has, to date, been a modest reform toward permitting recovery based on a probability that causation exists, discounting the damages awarded by the probability of causation. The central purpose of our inquiry is to employ a comparative methodology to better understand how different legal systems respond to causal uncertainty and to examine why, how an, Courts have, traditionally, required the plaintiff to prove to the requisite standard of proof that causation exists. This monograph addresses what has, to date, been a modest reform toward permitting recovery based on a probability that causation exists, discounting the damages awarded by the probability of causation. The central purpose of our inquiry is to employ a comparative methodology to better understand how different legal systems respond to causal uncertainty and to examine why, how and in what situations rules of proportional liability can promote the goals of tort law. Israel Gilead, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; Michael D. Green, Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston-Salem, USA; Bernhard A. Koch, Innsbruck University, Austria. PDF, 14.10.2013.

Lieferung aus: Deutschland, Sofort per Download lieferbar.
Courts have, traditionally, required the plaintiff to prove to the requisite standard of proof that causation exists. This monograph addresses what has, to date, been a modest reform toward permitting recovery based on a probability that causation exists, discounting the damages awarded by the probability of causation. The central purpose of our inquiry is to employ a comparative methodology to better understand how different legal systems respond to causal uncertainty and to examine why, how an Courts have, traditionally, required the plaintiff to prove to the requisite standard of proof that causation exists. This monograph addresses what has, to date, been a modest reform toward permitting recovery based on a probability that causation exists, discounting the damages awarded by the probability of causation. The central purpose of our inquiry is to employ a comparative methodology to better understand how different legal systems respond to causal uncertainty and to examine why, how and in what situations rules of proportional liability can promote the goals of tort law. Israel Gilead, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; Michael D. Green, Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston-Salem, USA; Bernhard A. Koch, Innsbruck University, Austria. 14.10.2013, PDF.

Lieferung aus: Deutschland, Versandkostenfrei.
Proportional Liability: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives: Causal uncertainty is a wide-spread phenomenon. Courts are often unable to determine whether a defendant`s tortious conduct was a factual cause of a plaintiff`s harm. Yet, sometimes courts can determine the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff`s harm, although often there is considerable variance in the probability estimate based on the available evidence. The conventional way to cope with this uncertainty has been to apply the evidentiary rule of `standard of proof`. The application of this `all or nothing` rule can lead to unfairness by absolving defendants who acted tortiously and may also create undesirable incentives that result in greater wrongful conduct and injustice to victims. Some courts have decided that this `no-liability` outcome is undesirable. They have adopted rules of proportional liability that compensate plaintiffs according to the probability that their harm was caused by the defendant`s tortious conduct. In 2005 the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) made a breakthrough in this regard by embracing rules of proportional liability. This project, building on PETL, endeavours to make further inquiries into the desirable scope of proportional liability and to offer a more detailed view of its meaning, implications, and ramifications. Englisch, Ebook.

Lieferung aus: Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland, Despatched same working day before 3pm.