{"title":"过失与效用","authors":"Allan Beever","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2017.1311513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the claim that assessment of the standard of care in the law of negligence utilises and must utilise considerations of utility. It argues that this position is mistaken. It also maintains that cases frequently thought to support this view do not do so. The article also examines the justice of appeals to utility in the relevant cases and examines the appropriate way to deal with emergency situations.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"109 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2017.1311513","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negligence and utility\",\"authors\":\"Allan Beever\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2017.1311513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article examines the claim that assessment of the standard of care in the law of negligence utilises and must utilise considerations of utility. It argues that this position is mistaken. It also maintains that cases frequently thought to support this view do not do so. The article also examines the justice of appeals to utility in the relevant cases and examines the appropriate way to deal with emergency situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"109 - 85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2017.1311513\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1311513\",\"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":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1311513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT This article examines the claim that assessment of the standard of care in the law of negligence utilises and must utilise considerations of utility. It argues that this position is mistaken. It also maintains that cases frequently thought to support this view do not do so. The article also examines the justice of appeals to utility in the relevant cases and examines the appropriate way to deal with emergency situations.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
