| The Tortious Liability of Statutory Bodies: A Comparative and Economic Analysis of Five Cases Contributor(s): Markesinis, Basil S. (Author), Auby, Jean-Bernard (Author), Coester-Waltjen, Dagmar (Author) |
|
 |
ISBN: 1841131245 ISBN-13: 9781841131245 Publisher: Hart Publishing OUR PRICE: $118.80 Product Type: Hardcover Published: December 1999 Annotation: In a number of important decisions such as Stovin V. Wise, X v. Bedfordshire, Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council and others, English courts have been forced to grapple with the important issues of tortious liability of statutory bodies. Following the HILL decision, they opted for a wide non-liability rule on a variety of policy and economic efficiency grounds. Yet many of their arguments have been considered and rejected by both German and French courts when deciding factually equivalent situations. This study analyzes five leading English cases in a comparative and economic way and questions the validity of their assumptions as well as their arguments in the light of the recent important decision of the Strasgbourg Court of Human Rights in Osman v. UK. This thought-provoking book, written by two English academics from Foxford and Cambridge Universities, in collaboration with two leading authorities from the Universities of Paris and Munich, should provide food for thought for j |
| Additional Information |
| BISAC Categories: - Law | Torts - Law | Constitutional |
| Dewey: 342.410 |
| LCCN: 2001266741 |
| Physical Information: 0.5" H x 5" W x 8" (0.71 lbs) 184 pages |
| Descriptions, Reviews, Etc. |
| Publisher Description: In a number of important decisions such as Stovin v. Wise, X v. Bedfordshire, Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council and others, English courts have been forced to grapple with the important issue of tortious liability of statutory bodies. Following the Hill decision, they opted for a wide non-liability rule on a variety of policy and economic efficiency grounds. Yet many of their arguments have been considered and rejected by both German and French courts when deciding factually equivalent situations. This study analyses five leading English cases in a comparative and economic way and questions the validity of their assumptions as well as their arguments in the light of the recent important decision of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights in Osman v. UK. This thought-provoking book, written by two English academics from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, in collaboration with two leading authorities from the Universities of Paris and Munich, should provide food for thought for judges, practitioners, academics and students for years to come. This book will be essential reading for scholars and practitioners interested in public law, human rights, comparative methodology, and tort law. |