Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Punishment in Tort: The Context of Ideas in Rookes v. Barnard

Punishment in Tort: The Context of Ideas in Rookes v. Barnard AbstractModern corrective justice theorists of tort law remain critical of the Anglo-American common law doctrine that allows a plaintiff to be awarded damages beyond compensation, and for the distinct purpose of punishing a defendant in a civil tort action. From the corrective justice standpoint, punishment is an illegitimate remedial purpose of the law of tort. So much so, that the historical doctrine of civil damages that continues to allow for it – exemplary (or punitive) damages – should be totally abolished. This article revisits a historical tort case that modern corrective justice tort theorists have praised for very nearly abolishing the exemplary damages doctrine in one leading common law jurisdiction: it critically explores the 1964 decision of the Appellate Committee of the United Kingdom House of Lords in Rookes v. Barnard. In doing so, it strives to set this theoretically significant reform of the English law of civil tortious recovery more vividly in the historical context in which it was undertaken. It contends that a deeper appreciation of Rookes’ theoretical significance requires taking fuller account of the context of ideas in which Lord Devlin – the Law Lord to whom the House’s decision on damages is ascribed – undertook it. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Tort Law de Gruyter

Punishment in Tort: The Context of Ideas in Rookes v. Barnard

Sinanis, Nicholas
Journal of Tort Law , Volume 15 (1): 37 – Mar 1, 2022
Download PDF
37 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/punishment-in-tort-the-context-of-ideas-in-rookes-v-barnard-kjmo9JmTPC
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
ISSN
1932-9148
eISSN
1932-9148
DOI
10.1515/jtl-2021-0010
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractModern corrective justice theorists of tort law remain critical of the Anglo-American common law doctrine that allows a plaintiff to be awarded damages beyond compensation, and for the distinct purpose of punishing a defendant in a civil tort action. From the corrective justice standpoint, punishment is an illegitimate remedial purpose of the law of tort. So much so, that the historical doctrine of civil damages that continues to allow for it – exemplary (or punitive) damages – should be totally abolished. This article revisits a historical tort case that modern corrective justice tort theorists have praised for very nearly abolishing the exemplary damages doctrine in one leading common law jurisdiction: it critically explores the 1964 decision of the Appellate Committee of the United Kingdom House of Lords in Rookes v. Barnard. In doing so, it strives to set this theoretically significant reform of the English law of civil tortious recovery more vividly in the historical context in which it was undertaken. It contends that a deeper appreciation of Rookes’ theoretical significance requires taking fuller account of the context of ideas in which Lord Devlin – the Law Lord to whom the House’s decision on damages is ascribed – undertook it.

Journal

Journal of Tort Law – de Gruyter

Published: Mar 1, 2022

Keywords: Rookes v. Barnard; Lord Devlin; exemplary damages; aggravated damages; tort law; tort theory; legal history

There are no references for this article.