Person:

Goldberg, John

Although published in 1970, The Costs of Accidents was written in the 1960s. In its boldness, its brilliance, and its progressive aspirations, the book is emblematic of the great society movement out of which it developed. Unimpressed with the legal and scholarly status quo, Calabresi set out to reinvent "accident law" in a manner that would best realize the set of values we care about most: minimizing accident costs within the limits set by justice. As confident as he was in his own framework, so was he critical of the value of the fault system which governed much of accident law then, and still does today. The bottom line is that the fault system is ill-suited to reducing primary accident costs. And, he argues, it is not even well suited to doing justice, so there is nothing to justify its ineptitude at cost reduction.

We respond to Calabresi's critique both within his framework of primary cost reduction, and more broadly, and we articulate both responses in terms of social norms of responsibility. As a means of primary cost reduction, we argue, the internalization of social norms of safe conduct is critical. These norms are sustained, in part, by their entrenchment within a legal system that links liability to duties and duties with norms of responsibility. Moreover, the creation of "loci of responsibility", the articulation of obligations, and the provision of private individuals with an avenue of redress against one another are valuable aspects of the fault system even apart from their connection with primary cost reduction. The Costs of Accidents, by looking only at cost reduction and justice, entirely overlooks a range of values enjoyed by the fault system. In the inspiring enthusiasm to improve human welfare across the board, thinkers of the 1960s risked rendering "responsibility" a casualty of the Great Society. In following those thinkers, we must understand notions of responsibility as a friend, not a foe, of social improvement.

This essay responds to the extensive and thoughtful commentary on civil recourse theory provided by Curtis Bridgeman, Julian and Stephen Darwall, John Gardner, Andrew Gold, Scott Hershovitz, Gabe Mendlow, Nathan Oman, Arthur Ripstein, Anthony Sebok, Emily Sherwin, Jason Solomon, and Ernest Weinrib, all of whom participated in a 2011 symposium at Florida State University School of Law that was devoted to the subject. In it, we defend civil recourse theory against corrective justice theory and (following our own, independent contributions to the symposium) further develop our critiques of that theory. Against methodological criticisms, we maintain that civil recourse theory is an interpretive theory that has both explanatory and normative power. Finally, we briefly tease out some of the implications of civil recourse theory for private law beyond torts (contract law, in particular), and for the philosophical analysis of concepts such as accountability and responsibility.

In “Duties to Try and Duties to Succeed,” Stephen Smith distinguishes two types of duties one might find in areas of private law such as contracts and torts: (1) duties to succeed (such as a duty not to trespass on another’s land), and (2) duties to try (such as a duty to try not to injure another through careless conduct). Smith argues that these types of duty differ not only in their structure, but in the standards of conduct they support (strict liability versus fault), the nature of the wrongdoing involved when those standards are breached (setbacks to rights or interests versus displays of disrespect), and the kind of liability they generate (damages that involve the duty-bearer doing the next best thing to heeding her duty to succeed versus damages that restore formal equality given the disrespect that is displayed by the breach of a duty to try). Finally, he concludes that, because Anglo-American private law grew haphazardly out of the writ system, it contains both types of duties yet lacks a coherent account of which duties apply or should apply to which conduct and which injuries.

Building on Smith’s highly illuminating treatment while also pushing back against his somewhat skeptical conclusion, our contribution to this volume will argue that there is a way for private law to combine aspects of duties to try and duties to succeed into what we call “qualified duties of noninjury.” In developing this claim, we re-examine Brown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. 292 (1850), a crucial decision that helped mark U.S. private law’s move away from the writ system by recognizing and defining the modern tort of negligence. Close attention to Chief Justice Shaw’s reasoning in Brown, we argue, will show that, at the center of negligence law, and indeed all of tort law, are qualified duties of noninjury, i.e., duties that have both a conduct element and an injury element.

This article addresses the intersection of three important topics: sexual assault, police misconduct, and employer liability for employee torts. As to the last of these, while there have long been debates among jurists in the U.S. concerning the proper scope of respondeat superior liability, courts have mostly adhered to an approach that focuses on whether the employee acted for the purpose of serving the employer’s interests. The narrowness of this purpose-based test, as compared to available alternatives, makes it imperative for lawyers, judges, and scholars to be attentive to other, less well-known, bases for employer liability. In Sherman v Department of Public Safety, the Delaware Supreme Court applied a particular version of one such doctrine – the “aided-by-agency” doctrine – to hold a police department accountable for its officer’s sexual assault of an arrestee. By articulating this doctrine in a thoughtful and circumscribed manner, the Court affirmed its reputation as a leader in the development of agency law, while also providing a helpful framework that can be applied to hold certain employers liable when employees take advantage of their employment-based authority over their victims to perpetrate assaults.