Unpicking Torts: Elements, Conditions of Actionability and Standing Rules.

There is a clear tendency among judges and scholars to regard torts like chemical compounds: as things comprising a fixed list of elements (such as duty, breach, causation etc). But it is sometimes said that claimants in tort cases must also demonstrate that a condition of actionability has been met...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Modern Law Review Vol. 87; no. 6; pp. 1519 - 1542
Autor principal: Murphy, John
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Nov2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=181482173&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 181482173
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00267961
        D8H
      jtl: Modern Law Review
      issn: 00267961
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Nov2024
      vid: 87
      iid: 6
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        181482173
        10.1111/1468-2230.12899
      ppf: 1519
      ppct: 23
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 230KB
      tig:
        atl: Unpicking Torts: Elements, Conditions of Actionability and Standing Rules.
      aug:
        au: Murphy, John
      su:
        Causation (Law)
        Torts
        Scholars
      sug:
        subj:
          Causation (Law)
          Torts
          Scholars
      ab: There is a clear tendency among judges and scholars to regard torts like chemical compounds: as things comprising a fixed list of elements (such as duty, breach, causation etc). But it is sometimes said that claimants in tort cases must also demonstrate that a condition of actionability has been met, or that a standing requirement within a particular tort has been satisfied. The use of these other terms raises two important questions. First, how a tort's elements may be distinguished from (1) conditions of actionability and (2) standing rules; and secondly, why any such distinction matters. This article addresses these questions and makes three key claims. The first such claim is that conditions of actionability may indeed be distinguished from elements. The second is that rules described as standing requirements within certain torts have no discrete juridical identity. The final claim is that appreciating the distinction between elements and conditions of actionability is important in both practical and theoretical terms.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Modern Law Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Modern Law Review
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N