| Summary: | The imposition of strict liability has long been and remains highly controversial. Legal systems rely on it to different extents and the arguments which are used to justify its imposition vary considerably within and across jurisdictions. The thesis compares the main justifications for strict liability as put forward in four legal systems, two common law (England and the United States) and two civil law (France and Italy). After explaining how strict liability is understood in the four laws and setting out the relevant contexts of strict liability, the thesis analyses comparatively the treatment that legal arguments receive across these legal systems. Some of these arguments are based on the notion of risk, while others relate to goals such as the avoidance of accidents, the protection of victims, or the redistribution of losses. By looking at how these arguments are used in each of the four legal systems, the thesis unearths a wide variety of patterns of reasoning, which reflect the different ways in which legal actors across the four laws think about strict liability. Moreover, the thesis assesses the justificatory weight of the arguments, showing that these can assume varying significance within and across the four laws and that such variations reflect different views as to the values and goals which should guide strict liability and inspire tort law more generally. Overall, the thesis seeks to improve our understanding of strict liability, to shed light on the significance and role of the justifications put forward for its imposition, and to enhance our comprehension of the different legal cultures featuring in the four legal systems studied.
|
|---|