Abstracts » Political science

Jules Coleman and corrective justice in tort law: a critique and reformulation

Article Abstract:

Jules L. Coleman in 'Risks and Wrongs' offers a 'mixed' conception of corrective justice to explain aspects of tort law. The 'mixed' conception combines the right of the victim to have wrongful losses repaired with agent-specific reasons for the injurer's duty to repair. However, this conception or any unitary conception of corrective justice is unnecessary. An alternative view which emphasizes the duty to avoid faulty conduct rather than compensation better explains negligence, strict liability and other aspects of tort law.

---

Foreword: Coleman and corrective justice

Article Abstract:

The theory of corrective justice outlined by Jules L. Coleman in his forthcoming book 'Risks and Wrongs' covers only a small portion of tort law. Corrective justice applies only to intentional and reckless torts, and even within the realm of intentional torts, the requirements of distributive and retributive justice may leave little scope for the operation of corrective justice. Furthermore, in assessing risks, negligence and strict liability cannot be distinguished after the fact.

Analysis

---

Why is corrective justice just?

Article Abstract:

The concept of corrective justice, which Jules L. Coleman offers as an explanation of much of tort law, fails to bridge the gap between the wrongful loss of the plaintiff and the liability of the defendant. Corrective justice is based on the premise that the plaintiff should be compensated for a wrongful loss, and therefore that the responsible party should repair the loss. However, Coleman fails to establish the just nature of the claim or how wrongdoing and loss are correlated.

Some parts © 2012 Advameg, Inc.