Your search
Results 140 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Personal autonomy is a constitutive element of all rights. It confers upon a right-holder the power to decide whether, and under what circumstances, to exercise her right. Every right infringement thus invariably involves a violation of its holder’s autonomy. The autonomy violation consists of the deprivation of a right-holder of a choice that was rightfully hers – the choice as to how to go about her life. Harms resulting from the right’s infringement and from the autonomy violation are often readily distinguishable, as is the case when someone uses the property of a right-holder without securing her permission or, worse, causes her bodily injury. At other times, however, the two harms overlap, as in the case when a right-holder is unlawfully barred from exercising her free speech right or is denied the right to vote. Furthermore, the autonomy harm may sometimes exceed the physical harm sustained by the victim, as is the case in many sexual harassment incidents. At other times, however, the victim’s physical harm or economic loss will outweigh the autonomy harm, as is often the case in automobile accidents. Even though autonomy violations are omnipresent, and the harm resulting from them can be severe, the law rarely recognizes a cause of action for violations of autonomy, nor does it provide redress for autonomy harms. The current legal approach to autonomy protection can best be characterized as anomalous and unprincipled. Therefore, from a normative perspective, it is untenable. In this article, we set out to make three novel theoretical and doctrinal contributions. First, we advance a comprehensive jurisprudential account of the relationship between rights and autonomy. Second, we show why existing law should be replaced with a legal regime that respects and protects individual autonomy in all cases. Finally, we develop a remedial framework designed to address autonomy violations. Mindful of administrability constraints, we incorporate three limitations to ensure that our proposal does not overwhelm the court system: (a) suits for autonomy violations would only be allowed when the plaintiff has a cause of action originating from the defendant’s infringement of her recognized legal right; (b) any such suit would undergo a strict de minimis scrutiny; and (c) no double recovery would be allowed in cases in which the plaintiff’s autonomy harm is subsumed in her physical or economic loss.
-
Alongside the dominant law and economics and corrective justice approaches to tort law, a new genre of tort theory based on principles and perspectives of social justice has come into its own and deserves recognition. Social justice tort theory starts from the premise that tort law reflects and reinforces systemic forms of injustice in the larger society and maintains that the compensatory ideal of tort law cannot be extricated from these larger systems. It is multi-dimensional and intersectional, recognizing that the impact of injury lands intersectionally, sometimes changing the intensity of the injury or distorting the nature of the injury. Social justice tort scholars have examined torts in gendered and racialized contexts, as well as in ordinary cases that seem to have little to do with systemic injury. In addition to feminist and critical race theory, they have borrowed from critical disability studies, queer theory and political economy. Their work demonstrates how tort law unfairly distributes damages, fails to provide adequate relief for victims of sexual assault or for people who suffer racial insult and discrimination, and erases maternal and reproductive harms. In their work, we can see common deconstructive moves (an emphasis on disparate impacts and devaluation; a teasing out of cognitive bias; and a critique of exceptionalism in tort doctrine) as well as guiding principles for reconstruction (incorporating victims’ perspectives; treating boundaries between civil rights law and tort law as permeable; and enhancing dignity and recognition).
-
In the article, we make three claims. First, we argue that a large number of what are traditionally seen as separate torts are, at their core, all about affronts to the dignity of the victim. These include offensive battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy, some nuisances, and abuse of process (malicious prosecution). These torts do not involve direct physical harm but, rather, emotional distress from having your dignity attacked. Second, we argue that as these torts have developed inside of their own doctrinal silos, there are important differences among the laws governing them. Third, we argue that these differences are not justified and that it would be better to create a consistent tort approach to dignitary harm: tort recovery should lie for injuries resulting from wrongful conduct that is highly offensive and causes more than minor harm. This, it turns out, is the standard that currently applies in a majority of jurisdictions for privacy invasions. If more widely adopted, this standard would, for example, far more easily allow recovery for nasty verbal sexual (or other) harassment, since intentional infliction of emotional distress currently requires a much stronger showing. At the same time, it would preclude recovery for minor physical touchings that technically now qualify as offensive battery. We think this achieves the balance much better.
-
These essays illustrate the advantages of 'reflexive' tort scholarship by contrasting the reflexive scholarship of judicial analysis with grand theory, then applying reflexive scholarship to the tort of negligence. The final essay presents a wider argument about human responsibility and legal conduct.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
According to police-reported data, impaired driving killed as many as 155 people in Canada in 2019 (88 impaired drivers1 and 67 other road users) and injured 540.2 By comparison, all other criminal offences causing death excluding homicide resulted in the deaths of 108 people in 2019. Furthermore, a 2013 study for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada estimated that the total social costs associated with impaired driving were $20.6 billion (Pitel and Solomon 2013). [...]before cannabis became legal, police services in Canada were already stopping an increasing number of drug-impaired drivers (Moreau 2019; Perreault 2016).3 So, to coincide with legalization, the Government of Canada implemented measures to fight drug-impaired driving. When collection of comparable data began in 1986, police reported 577 incidents per 100,000 population. [...]the early 2000s, this rate declined by an average of 5.5% each year, before stabilizing at about 250 incidents per 100,000 population during the 2000s.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (1)
- Book (33)
- Book Section (15)
- Case (40)
- Dictionary Entry (6)
- Journal Article (42)
- Magazine Article (1)
- Newspaper Article (1)
- Report (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (1)
- Aboriginal peoples (1)
- Administrative law (1)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (2)
- Charter of Rights (4)
- Constitutional law (6)
- Contracts (1)
- Copyright (1)
- Courts (2)
- Criminal law (7)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (2)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Family law (3)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Income tax (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Private international law (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Sexual assault (1)
- Taxation (1)
- Torts (1)