2006Digital USD (University of San Diego)Open access

Public Services Meet Private Law

Michael I. Krauss

Open full text 3 citations

Abstract

Public services are provided at various levels, and for various reasons, by governments to corporate and private citizens. Recently, an important movement in tort theory has sought to allow governments to recoup the cost of public services as tort damages from wrongdoers, especially from wrongdoers of the corporate variety. Much of the latest thrust in tort law, which consists of attorneys-general's suits against corporations, relies implicitly on a challenge to the common law's "free public services doctrine."\nRecently, scholarship emanating largely from plaintiff-oriented sources has sought to appeal to free-market and law-and-economics scholars (who are often defense-oriented) by emphasizing the allocative and distributive efficiency of abolishing this common law doctrine. This article rebuts this new scholarship and defends the common law rule against both efficiency arguments and non-efficiency arguments. The article establishes that the free public services doctrine is fundamental both to the nature of private law and to the essence of tort, and concludes that only public law, not common law "evolution", should be allowed to alter the doctrine. The article should appeal to readers interested in the essence of tort law, as well as to law-and-economics readers.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Public services are provided at various levels, and for various reasons, by governments to corporate and private citizens. Recently, an important movement in tort theory has sought to allow governments to recoup the cost of public services as tort damages from wrongdoers, especially from wrongdoers of the corporate variety. Much of the latest thrust in tort law, which consists of attorneys-general's suits against corporations, relies implicitly on a challenge to the common law's "free public services doctrine."\nRecently, scholarship emanating largely from plaintiff-oriented sources has sought to appeal to free-market and law-and-economics scholars (who are often defense-oriented) by emphasizing the allocative and distributive efficiency of abolishing this common law doctrine. This article rebuts this new scholarship and defends the common law rule against both efficiency arguments and non-efficiency arguments. The article establishes that the free public services doctrine is fundamental both to the nature of private law and to the essence of tort, and concludes that only public law, not common law "evolution", should be allowed to alter the doctrine. The article should appeal to readers interested in the essence of tort law, as well as to law-and-economics readers.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Public services are provided at various levels, and for various reasons, by governments to corporate and private citizens. Recently, an important movement in tort theory has sought to allow governments to recoup the cost of public services as tort damages from wrongdoers, especially from wrongdoers of the corporate variety. Much of the latest thrust in tort law, which consists of attorneys-general's suits against corporations, relies implicitly on a challenge to the common law's "free public services doctrine."\nRecently, scholarship emanating largely from plaintiff-oriented sources has sought to appeal to free-market and law-and-economics scholars (who are often defense-oriented) by emphasizing the allocative and distributive efficiency of abolishing this common law doctrine. This article rebuts this new scholarship and defends the common law rule against both efficiency arguments and non-efficiency arguments. The article establishes that the free public services doctrine is fundamental both to the nature of private law and to the essence of tort, and concludes that only public law, not common law "evolution", should be allowed to alter the doctrine. The article should appeal to readers interested in the essence of tort law, as well as to law-and-economics readers.

Key concepts: Tort, Doctrine, Damages, Legislation, Law, Subsidy, Liability, Plaintiff

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Public Services Meet Private Law — Research Paper | ScholarLens