|
Date:
Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:00:47
From:
Jason Neyers
Subject:
UK Compensation Bill Published
Dear
Robert:
I
will stop the answering "questions with questions exchanges" and
say (without having read the case) that I think that it is irrelevant
that it is during an emergency or during the war. I do not see why
it is relevant -- why should one persons rights be sacrificed for
the greater good by a judge charged with enforcing rights? If it
is in the public good, then the public should pay or retroactively
deem the action to be mandated by law if they cannot afford to.
That
is maybe why I do not think that I buy into Richard Wright's second
concept of indirect benefits which seems to be saying that I have
to accept as a social good things that others accept as socially
useful. Do the Mennonite or the Amish have to accept the social
utility of planes, trains and automobiles?
Cheers,
-----
Original Message -----
From: Robert Stevens
Date: Thursday, November 3, 2005 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ODG: UK Compensation Bill Published]
Jason
wrote:
Take
the following example: I discover a cure for HIV/AIDS that involves
releasing a rare form of radiation into the atmosphere. The radiation
is very rare and is largely benign but unfortunately is deadly,
99 times out of 100, for 1 in a million people. Is it negligent
to release the radiation? If social utility is the test, or a part
of the test, then clearly it is not.
What
if during a wartime shortage of vehicles, the defendants use a left
hand vehicle which had no signal when turning into an offside lane.
If the use of the vehicle during the emergency results in an accident
are, do we ignore the utility of the action and judge the driver
as if it was still peacetime?
(The answer is, of course, no: Daborn v Bath Tramways
[1946] 2 All ER 343.)
The
important point, and this is Professor Wright's point I think, is
how and why we think social utility is relevant. If we were economists
(which thank the Lord we are not) we'd think that fault was all
about weighing up costs and benefits. That is untenable as a matter
of law. Trying to argue that we completely ignore social utility
is also not a runner.
--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
| 