首页> 外文OA文献 >A Theory of Government Damages Liability: Torts, Constitutional Torts, and Takings
【2h】

A Theory of Government Damages Liability: Torts, Constitutional Torts, and Takings

机译:政府损害赔偿责任理论:侵权,宪法侵权和侵害

摘要

Theories of tort liability generally fall within two broad camps: the instrumentalists claim that tort liability promotes efficient investments in safety by cutting into the revenues of those who under-invest in safety; and the advocates of corrective justice claim that tort liability embodies a moral obligation of culpable parties to bear losses for which they are fairly considered responsible. Neither theory offers much support for government tort liability. Unlike private tortfeasors, the government’s objective is not profit maximization; it responds to political and not market discipline. Thus, the instrumental justification for tort liability is wanting in the public sector. As for corrective justice, the government passes its legal costs along to the taxpayers, who bear little if any culpability for the underlying tortious conduct. Thus, corrective justice also supplies little support for public-sector tort liability. Indeed, there is an emerging consensus among legal scholars that government tort liability lacks a coherent justification.In this article, I endeavor to show that the emerging consensus is wrong. To do so, I anchor the justification for government tort liability in a theory of political behavior. I look to politics because the government responds primarily to political costs and benefits, whereas private tortfeasors respond primarily to economic rewards or punishment. In my view, government tort liability exacts a political price by diverting the funds used to pay judgments and other litigation costs from what elected officials regard as the politically optimal use of those funds. Therefore, government liability creates a political incentive to invest in loss prevention in order to maximize political control over public resources. This theory, however, does not argue for unlimited government liability; to the contrary, it also provide a justification for many of the immunities that limit government liability.
机译:侵权责任理论一般可分为两大阵营:工具论者认为,侵权责任通过削减对安全投资不足的人的收入来促进安全方面的有效投资;矫正司法的倡导者认为,侵权责任体现了负有责任的当事方承担的道义义务,他们应承担合理的责任。两种理论都没有为政府的侵权责任提供太多支持。与私人侵权者不同,政府的目标不是利润最大化。它是对政治而不是市场纪律的回应。因此,在公共部门中缺乏针对侵权责任的工具论证。至于矫正司法,政府将其法律费用转嫁给了纳税人,纳税人对潜在的侵权行为几乎不负任何责任。因此,矫正司法也很少为公共部门的侵权责任提供支持。确实,在法律学者中已经出现了一种新的共识,即政府的侵权责任缺乏连贯的理由。在本文中,我努力证明这种新的共识是错误的。为此,我将政治侵权行为理论作为政府侵权责任的理由。我之所以关注政治,是因为政府主要对政治成本和收益做出反应,而私人侵权行为人主要对经济回报或惩罚做出反应。我认为,政府的侵权责任通过将用于支付判决和其他诉讼费用的资金从当选官员认为是这些资金的政治最佳用途中转移出来,从而在政治上定价。因此,政府责任创造了一种政治动机来投资于预防损失,以最大程度地控制公共资源。但是,这种理论并不主张无限的政府责任。相反,它也为限制政府责任的许多豁免提供了理由。

著录项

  • 作者

    Rosenthal Lawrence;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2006
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号