公共机构因疏忽大意未能提供保护而造成伤害的责任

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1515/jtl-2023-0040
Sandy Steel
{"title":"公共机构因疏忽大意未能提供保护而造成伤害的责任","authors":"Sandy Steel","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2023-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article considers the UK Supreme Court decision in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police. It explains the significance of the decision in terms of its affirmation of the principle that public authorities, in the case, the police, are subject to the same duties of care as private individuals in the tort of negligence. While offering some support for this ‘equality principle’, the article questions whether the principle is justifiably applied so as to restrict public authorities’ liability to that of private individuals.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"16 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm\",\"authors\":\"Sandy Steel\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jtl-2023-0040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article considers the UK Supreme Court decision in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police. It explains the significance of the decision in terms of its affirmation of the principle that public authorities, in the case, the police, are subject to the same duties of care as private individuals in the tort of negligence. While offering some support for this ‘equality principle’, the article questions whether the principle is justifiably applied so as to restrict public authorities’ liability to that of private individuals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 本文探讨了英国最高法院对迈克尔诉南威尔士警察局长一案的判决。文章解释了该判决的重要意义,即它肯定了公共机构(在本案中为警察)在过失侵权中与私人负有同样的注意义务这一原则。文章在对这一 "平等原则 "表示支持的同时,也质疑了该原则的适用是否合理,从而将公共机构的责任限制在与私人相同的范围内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm
Abstract This article considers the UK Supreme Court decision in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police. It explains the significance of the decision in terms of its affirmation of the principle that public authorities, in the case, the police, are subject to the same duties of care as private individuals in the tort of negligence. While offering some support for this ‘equality principle’, the article questions whether the principle is justifiably applied so as to restrict public authorities’ liability to that of private individuals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Tort Law
Journal of Tort Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of Tort Law aims to be the premier publisher of original articles about tort law. JTL is committed to methodological pluralism. The only peer-reviewed academic journal in the U.S. devoted to tort law, the Journal of Tort Law publishes cutting-edge scholarship in tort theory and jurisprudence from a range of interdisciplinary perspectives: comparative, doctrinal, economic, empirical, historical, philosophical, and policy-oriented. Founded by Jules Coleman (Yale) and some of the world''s most prominent tort scholars from the Harvard, Fordham, NYU, Yale, and University of Haifa law faculties, the journal is the premier source for original articles about tort law and jurisprudence.
期刊最新文献
Situating Tort Law Within a Web of Institutions: Insights for the Age of Artificial Intelligence Against Harm: Keating on the Soul of Tort Law What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
×
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