Public Nuisance for Private Persons

Author:

Dagan Hanoch1,Dorfman Avihay2

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)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3