Liability for Harm versus Regulation of Safety A Text from S. SHAVELL
par Gabriel Jaccard, publié le 10/03/2016
Affiliation : Universität Zürich
Categories : Droit civil
“Prevention is better than cure” except you can’t always prevent harms to be done neither can you let damages free of any responsibility. This is the whole problem about the debate of Liability vs. Regulation.
Since 1984, date at which Shavell wrote his theory, the two notions have evolved in a significant way, partly thanks to the numerous debates of the doctrine but also thanks to new important domains, like ecology. The complexity of the world still gives matters to discuss. Indeed, economy of mass or birth of “care states” motivated by public interest has affected the conceptions of our legislators.
At first, two word about the American author and his work. Shavell is at the same time a jurist and an economist. His work Liability for Harm Vs. Regulation of Safety tries to explain via four determinants why society, in 1984, has adopted a solution combining liability and regulation.
My objective in this work is to focus on some comparisons and criticize of Shavell’s theory with others thinkers to see discrepancies. In a second time, I will show further developments and examples, especially Swiss ones.
Citation : Jaccard Gabriel, Liability for Harm versus Regulation of Safety A Text from S. SHAVELL, in lawded.ch.
Connectez-vous pour accéder au document (100% gratuit)