Publisher description
In a number of important decisions such as "Stovin v. Wise", "X v.
Bedfordshire", "Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council" and others, English
courts have been forced to contend with the important issue of tortious
liability of statutory bodies. Following the "Hill" decision, they opted for a
wide non-liability rule on a variety of policy and economic efficiency grounds.
Yet many of their arguments have been considered and rejected by both German
and French courts when deciding factually equivalent situations. This study analyses five leading English cases in a comparative and
economic way, and questions the validity of their assumptions as well as their
arguments in the light of the recent important decision of the Strasbourg Court
of Human Rights in "Osman v. UK". This book should be useful to scholars and practitioners interested in
public law, human rights, comparative methodology and tort law. Focusing on the issue of tortious liability of statutory bodies, this text
analyses five English cases in a comparative and economic way, and questions
the validity of their assumptions as well as their arguments in the light of
the decision of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights in "Osman v. UK".
More books by the authors
Similar books
Rate the book
Write a review and share your opinion with others. Try to focus on the content of the book. Read our instructions for further information.
Tortious Liability of Statutory Bodies: A Comparative Look at Five Cases
Book reviews » Tortious Liability of Statutory Bodies: A Comparative Look at Five Cases
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
