Volume 9 (2009)
Most Downloaded Articles
- Definition of "Investment": Could a Persistent Objector to the Salini Tests be Found in ICSID Arbitral Practice? by Martin, Antoine
- Comparative Personal Property: The Case of Shares by Pretto, Arianna
- Female Circumcision as Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights or Cultural Imperialism? by Oba, Abdulmumini A
- The E-Commerce Directive and Formation of Contract in a Comparative Perspective by Ramberg, Christina Hultmark
- The International Legal Personality of Multinational Enterprises: Treaty, Custom and the Governance Gap by Hansen, Robin F.
Public Tort Liability: Recommending an Alternative to Tort Liability and No-Fault Compensation
1Osgoode Hall Law School, email@example.com
Citation Information: Global Jurist Advances. Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages –, ISSN (Online) 1535-1661, DOI: 10.2202/1535-1661.1064, January 2003
- Published Online:
Hassan El Menayawi seeks to briefly describe the characteristics of two legal regimes: the no-fault compensation and tort liability. No-fault compensation is primarily characterized by the compensation of any person who experiences personal injury without having to demonstrate that it is caused by the fault of another person. On the other hand, in tort liability, the decision whether to compensate a plaintiff is determined primarily on the basis of whether the defendant committed a fault. After examining the advantages and disadvantages of each regime, he seeks to demonstrate that it is possible to combine the advantages of no-fault compensation and tort liability in an alternative, third regime that he calls "public tort liability". Public tort liability is premised on the idea that the state ought to compensate all victims of injury regardless of whether they committed a fault, but also pursue those who committed a wrong in order to hold them accountable.