NCJ Number
138016
Journal
Indiana Law Journal Volume: 67 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1992) Pages: 381-409
Date Published
1992
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This article critiques Jules Coleman's explanation of the role of corrective justice in tort law as expounded in Coleman's "Tort Law and the Demands of Corrective Justice."
Abstract
In Coleman's view corrective justice "demands that wrongful (or unjust) gains and losses be rectified, eliminated, or annulled." This critique of Coleman's account of the way that claims to repair arise in corrective justice argues that it is simultaneously too complex and too simple. It is complex in the sense that it recognizes two discrete categories of tort cases: wrongful harmings and rights invasions. There is only one category, however. Y should obtain a right to repair against X only if X causes Y loss by invading one of Y's primary rights. Coleman's account is also too simple, because his case categories are conceived too rigidly to allow for the indefinitely large number of possible variations. The range of normative considerations that may apply in the assessment of the impact of particular types of conduct on particular types of interests is too great to be captured by Coleman's rigid distinction between wrongful harmings and rights invasions. 97 footnotes