Concluding Reflections

Abstract

AbstractPart 4 of the book provides some concluding reflections. First, it emphasizes that while the same argument may be used to justify the imposition of strict liability in a plurality of contexts and a particular context may attract a multitude of arguments, there is no one-to-one relation between any particular context of strict liability and any particular substantive justification. Secondly, Part 4 provides some reflections on the patterns of reasoning in strict liability, highlighting the wide variety of patterns identified in the book, the main types of patterns in relation to the various arguments discussed as well as the problems of clarity that may affect some of them (and, particularly, juxtapositions of arguments). Thirdly, Part 4 provides an overall picture of each legal system’s reasoning by pulling together its constituent parts (the arguments) and by paying attention to the values and goals to which legal actors are committed. This allows us to appreciate and contrast the distinct commitments which shape the role and significance of legal arguments across the four laws and to enhance the understanding of each system’s tort culture. Finally, Part 4 provides some final critical and comparative thoughts on the complexity of legal reasoning in strict liability, emphasizing that there is a plethora of different understandings of the justificatory basis of strict liability within and across legal systems, and that the differences in the legal reasoning on strict liability across the four systems does not trace the distinction between the common law and the civil law tradition.