New Private Law Theory and Tort Law: A Comment
Keith N. Hylton
Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 12-04
This comment was prepared for the Harvard Law Review symposium on “The New Private Law”, as a response to Benjamin Zipursky’s principal paper on torts. I find Zipursky’s reliance on Cardozo’s Palsgraf opinion as a foundational source of tort theory troubling, for two reasons. First, Cardozo fails to offer a consistent theoretical framework for tort law in his opinions, many of which are difficult to reconcile with one another. Second, Palsgraf should be understood as an effort by Cardozo to provide greater predictability, within a special class of proximate cause cases, by reallocating decision-making power from juries to judges. It was almost surely not an effort to set out a nonconsequentialist theory of tort law. While I agree with some of the goals of the new private law movement, much work remains to be done, within the methodological approach championed by Zipursky, in constructing a rigorous theoretical framework.
Size: 68 KB
Adobe Acrobat Reader v3.01 or greater is required to view this paper.
To obtain a free copy, click the button below
Keith N. Hylton, "New Private Law Theory and Tort Law: A Comment," B.U. Law Working Paper No. 12-04 (January 31, 2011), SSRN Paper No. 1996680 (see link below); forthcoming in an upcoming issue of the Harvard Law Review Forum, 2012..
Keith N. Hylton
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH NETWORK