Are Tort Remedies ‘Civil Recourse’?

IF 0.8 2区哲学 Q3 ETHICS

Law and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-01-17 DOI:10.1007/s10982-021-09440-8

Smith, Stephen A.

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I examine John Goldberg and Benjamin Zipursky’s argument, set out in Recognizing Wrongs, that the ‘principle of civil recourse’ explains much (though not all) of tort law. Specifically, I assess their claim that tort remedies are instances of civil recourse. I argue that while this label fits a variety of damages awards (and fits them better than the leading alternatives), it does not fit two significant tort remedies: injunctions and damages for pecuniary losses.

查看原文本刊更多论文

侵权救济是“民事追索权”吗?

在本文中，我考察了约翰·戈德堡和本杰明·齐布尔斯基在《认识错误》一书中提出的观点，即“民事追索权原则”解释了大部分(尽管不是全部)侵权法。具体来说，我将评估他们关于侵权救济是民事追索权实例的主张。我认为，虽然这一标签适用于各种损害赔偿裁决(而且比主要的替代方案更适合)，但它不适用于两种重要的侵权救济:禁令和经济损失损害赔偿。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Law and Philosophy Multiple-

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Law and Philosophy is a forum for the publication of work in law and philosophy which is of common interest to members of the two disciplines of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It is open to all approaches in both fields and to work in any of the major legal traditions - common law, civil law, or the socialist tradition. The editors of Law and Philosophy encourage papers which exhibit philosophical reflection on the law informed by a knowledge of the law, and legal analysis informed by philosophical methods and principles.