Intent in Tort Law

Keith N. Hylton
{"title":"Intent in Tort Law","authors":"Keith N. Hylton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1393300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper, prepared for the 2009 Monsanto Lecture in Tort Jurisprudence, explains intent standards in tort law on the basis of the incentive effects of tort liability rules. Intent rules serve a regulatory function by internalizing costs optimally. The intent standard for battery internalizes costs in a manner that discourages socially harmful acts and at the same time avoids discouraging socially beneficial activity. The intent standard for assault is more difficult to satisfy than that for battery because it is designed to provide a subsidy of a sort to the speech that is often intermixed with potentially threatening conduct. In addition to the optimal internalization goal, transaction costs play a role in the specification of intent requirements. The subtle difference between the intent requirements for trespass and battery can be explained on the basis of transaction costs.","PeriodicalId":168354,"journal":{"name":"Torts & Products Liability Law","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Torts & Products Liability Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1393300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

This paper, prepared for the 2009 Monsanto Lecture in Tort Jurisprudence, explains intent standards in tort law on the basis of the incentive effects of tort liability rules. Intent rules serve a regulatory function by internalizing costs optimally. The intent standard for battery internalizes costs in a manner that discourages socially harmful acts and at the same time avoids discouraging socially beneficial activity. The intent standard for assault is more difficult to satisfy than that for battery because it is designed to provide a subsidy of a sort to the speech that is often intermixed with potentially threatening conduct. In addition to the optimal internalization goal, transaction costs play a role in the specification of intent requirements. The subtle difference between the intent requirements for trespass and battery can be explained on the basis of transaction costs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
侵权行为法中的意图
本文是为2009年孟山都侵权法学讲座准备的,在侵权责任规则激励效应的基础上解释侵权法中的意图标准。意图规则通过最优地内部化成本来发挥监管功能。电池的意图标准将成本内部化,以阻止对社会有害的行为,同时避免阻碍对社会有益的活动。攻击的意图标准比殴打更难满足,因为它的目的是为经常与潜在威胁行为混在一起的言论提供某种补贴。除了最优内部化目标外,交易成本在意图需求的规范中也起着重要作用。非法侵入和故意侵犯的意图要求之间的细微差别可以从交易成本的角度来解释。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Dynamic Model of Lawsuit Joinder and Settlement Quantitative Proof of Reputational Harm Injuries, Damages and a Puzzle: Can an Effect Ever Precede its Cause Efficiency, Fairness, and the Economic Analysis of Tort Law Fault at the Contract-Tort Interface
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1