Insanity as a Tort Defence

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31 (4):727-754 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Unlike the criminal law, tort law does not recognize insanity as an answer to liability. The fact that a defendant was insane at the time of his impugned conduct is essentially ignored by tort law's liability rules. It will be argued that this situation is unsatisfactory. A person should not incur liability in tort in respect of acts committed while insane. This result should be realized by providing for a generally applicable affirmative defence of insanity

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,636

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Liability for failing to rescue.TheodoreM Benditt - 1982 - Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418.
Partial liability.Alex Kaiserman - 2017 - Legal Theory 23 (1):1-26.
Mens Rea in tort law.Cane Peter - 2000 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20 (4):533-556.
Is There a Case for Strict Liability?Larry Alexander - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (3):531-538.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-02

Downloads
53 (#412,169)

6 months
15 (#212,111)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references