Affiliation:
1. Stewart and Judy Colton Professor of Legal Theory and Innovation and Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Israel
2. Visiting Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, United States; Professor of Law, Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Abstract
The public nuisance tort is now in a critical stage of development, mostly in the United States but also in other jurisdictions, including civil law systems. It is becoming ever more consequential in practice and, at the same time, widely misunderstood by courts and scholars. Our ambition is to defend a private law theory of public nuisance. Contrary to the view that the underlying rights protected by this tort contrast with private rights (say, to bodily integrity), we argue that these public rights are private rights like any other right in the law of torts since they protect private persons taken severally. And, yet, these private rights are also distinctively public in the sense that they protect the interests of private persons to use and enjoy the public sphere. In that, public nuisance imposes not merely ex post liability for undermining these interests but also, first and foremost, constructs a liberal public sphere. Our case for public nuisance shows that private law extends beyond the private sphere to capture entitlements and responsibilities that do not arise from, or attach to, ownership of land; it also resists the reduction of private law to rights of action and ex post determination of liabilities. More concretely, our reconstruction of public nuisance solves two key doctrinal challenges that the tort struggles with – concerning the standing to sue in public nuisance and the economic loss rule – and it also refines the potentially significant role of this tort in addressing the urgent threat posed by climate change.
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference175 articles.
1. A liberal legal order, we contend, places substantive freedom and equality, as opposed to either formal freedom and equality or aggregate social welfare, at its moral centre. Does it mean that the justice of private law must or should protect substantive freedom and equality as well? Relational justice’s answer is in the affirmative. For it is one thing for the state to respect its constituents as genuinely free and equal persons and quite another to live in a society that also expects individuals themselves to comply with the ideal of just relationships between free and equal persons. Accordingly, relational justice theory takes the latter possibility to be a necessary element of the liberal legal order.
2. Private Action for Public Nuisance
3. RECONCEPTUALISING THE TORT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
4. Ganim v Smith & Wesson Corp, 780 A (2d) 98 at 132(Conn 2001). See also State v Lead Industries Association, Inc, 951 A (2d) 428 at 446-7 (RI 2008)