No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
The first thought of the person who has had the good fortune to be called to hold the Arthur Goodhart Chair of Legal Science is naturally to express his gratitude for the honour bestowed on him, by attempting to describe the contribution to contemporary law of the man under whose patronage he will speak.
1 Kneale, “Objectivity in Morals,” Philosophy (1950), pp. 149, 163; Goodhart, A. L., English Law and the Moral Law (1953), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar Compare however Ross, A., On Law and Justice (1958), pp. 268–288.Google Scholar
2 Op. cit., p. 35.
3 Op. cit., p. 37.
4 Lev. 19, 17.
5 Deut. 6. 5; Matt. 22. 34–40; Mark 12. 28–31; Luke 10. 25–28; John 13. 34–35.
6 On the morality of the fault principle, compare Williams, Glanville, “The Aims of the Law of Tort” (1951) 4 C.L.P. 137–176, at pp. 144–151Google Scholar; Fuller, L. L., The Morality of Law (1964), p. 167.Google Scholar
7 Op. cit., (supra, n. 1) 99.
8 [1932] A.C. 562, 580.
9 See e.g., Winfield and Jolowicz, The Law of Tort (9th ed., 1971), pp. 48–60; Salmond, The Law of Torts (15th ed. 1969), by D. F. Heuston, pp. 254–281; Street, H., The Law of Torts (5th ed. 1972), pp. 101–115Google Scholar; Fleming, J. G., The Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971), pp. 133–168.Google Scholar
10 Compare Williams, Glanville, op. cit. (supra, n. 6) at pp. 141–142.Google Scholar As to the Hebrew-Christian tradition, see Matt. 7.1–5; Luke 6.17, 42; Rom, 2.1–2; 1 Cor, 4.5.
11 For a number of contrasts between moral and legal responsibilities, see Feinberg, Doing and Deserving. Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (1970), pp. 30–33 (compare pp. 187–195). Compare also Pound, R., Law and Morals (2nd ed., 1926).Google Scholar
12 Lord, Denning M.R. in Nettleship v. Weston [1971] 3 W.L.R. 370, 376.Google Scholar Compare A.L.G., note (1971) 87 L.Q.R. 444.
13 James, F., “An Evaluation of the Fault Concept” 33 Tenn.L.Rev. 394–405, 395 (1965).Google Scholar See also O. W. Holmes, The Common Law (1881), p. 108.
14 Italics supplied.
15 Compare Symmons, C. R., “The Duty of Care in Negligence: Recently Expressed Policy Elements” (1971) 34 M.L.R. 394–409, 528–541Google Scholar
16 Compare Atiyah, P. S., Accidents, Compensation and the Law (1970) pp. 449–477.Google Scholar
17 Compare P. S. Atiyah (supra, n. 16) pp. 490–502.
18 Compare Ogus, A. I., “Damages for Lost Amenities: For a Foot, a Feeling or a Function” (1972) 35 M.L.R. 1–17.Google Scholar
19 See Lawson, F. H., Negligence in the Civil Law (1950)Google Scholar; von Mehren, A., The Civil Law System (1957), pp. 339–414Google Scholar; , Amos and , Walton, Introduction to French Law (3rd ed., 1967), by Lawson, F. H., Anton, A. E. and Brown, L. Neville, pp. 200–238Google Scholar; Tunc, A., “The Twentieth Century Development and Function of the Law of Torts in France” (1965) I.C.L.Q. 1089–1103.Google Scholar
20 A comparable reflection could be made, e.g., on Boynton v. Ryan (3rd Cir. 1958) 257 Fed. 70Google Scholar, or on Dunne v. N. W. Gas Board [1964] 2 Q.B. 806Google Scholar, and its discussion by Jolowicz, J. A. “Liability for Accidents” [1968] C.L.J. 50–63, at p. 59Google Scholar, or again on Cass, 2e civ, 10 April, 1964. Dalloz, 1965, p. 169Google Scholar, and their discussion by Tunc, A., op. cit. (supra, n. 19), at pp. 1099–1101.Google Scholar
21 [1951] A.C. 850.
22 “Is it Cricket?” (1951) 67 L.Q.R. 460.
23 Cass, 2e civ., 1 Dec, 1965; Juris-Classeur Périodique (1966)Google Scholar 11.14567. See also Rodière, Rev.trim.dr.civ. 1966, pp. 297–298; Tunc, “L'enfant et la balle. Rèflexions sur la responsabilitè civile et I'assurance” Juris-Classeur Pèriodique (1966)Google Scholar 1.1893.
24 Op. cit. (supra, n. 20). Compare Ison, T. G., The Forensic Lottery (1967)Google Scholar; Keeton, R. E., Venturing to do Justice (1969)Google Scholar; Atiyah, P. S., op. cit.Google Scholar (supra, n. 16).
25 Norman, L. G., Road Traffic Accidents, Epidemiology, Control and Prevention (W.H.O. Public Health Papers 12, 1962), p. 51.Google Scholar
26 U.S.A. Department of Transportation, Driver Behavior and Accident Involvement; Implications for Tort Liability (1970), pp. 176–180.Google Scholar
27 Compare Williams, Glanvilleop. et loc. cit.Google Scholar (supra, n. 6); Jolowicz, J. A., op. cit. (supra, n. 20) at pp. 56–57Google Scholar; Fingarette, H., “Some Moral Aspects of Good Samaritanship”Google Scholar, and Honore, A. M., “Law, Morals and Rescue”, in the Good Samaritan and the Law (Ratcliffe, J. M., ed., 1966), pp. 213–233Google Scholar, and pp. 225–242.
28 For a legal study of the parable of the Good Samaritan see Derrett, J. D. M., Law in the New Testament (1970), pp. 208–227.Google Scholar
29 Compare Jolowicz, J. A.op. cit. (supra, n. 20), at p. 60.Google Scholar
30 Compare Ison, T. G., op. cit.Google Scholar (supra, n. 24); Williams, Glanville, op. cit. (supra, n. 6) at pp. 172–175Google Scholar; Jolowicz, J. A., op. cit. (supra, n. 20) at pp. 62–63Google Scholar; McKenzie, P. D. “Report of the Select Committee on Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand” (1971) 34 M.L.R. 542–549.Google Scholar
31 “Our Horse and Buggy Law” 49 J.Am.Soc. 26–30 (June 1965).Google Scholar
32 Atiyah, P. S., op. cit. (supra, n. 16) p. 151.Google Scholar
33 American Insurance Association, Report of Special Committee to Study and Evaluate the Keeton-O'Connell Basic Protection Plan and Automobile Accident Reparations (1968), p. 16.Google Scholar
34 Cass, 2e civ., 3 Nov, 1971; Dalloz, 1972 Som, 31.
35 A.L.G., (1971) 87 L.Q.R. 451.
36 Compare Wright, C. A., “The Adequacy of the Law of Torts” [1961] C.L.J. 44–61, especially pp. 44–47.Google Scholar